vrijdag 31 oktober 2008

About revisionism (7)

The political line of the CPC, after the dead of Mao Zedong in 1976, was more and more based on revisionism. This revisionist politic line, perhaps in the beginning combated by people like for example Hua Guofeng (and who became more isolated in the party) is in fact since 1978, the leading political line of the CPC. He is developed by Deng Xiaoping since 1978.
I will prove this in the coming articles using texts of Deng Xiaoping himself.
People or organisations, who now defend socialism in China (against the political and ideological attacks out of the imperialist world) but who are not making an analysis from and who are not
fighting (political and ideological) against the revisionism in the CPC, are, as I see it, no Marxists, communists or revolutionaries (nor as individual nor as organisation).
Individuals or organisation like that, are by THEMSELVES contaminated by revisionism.
This MUST have repercussions on their OWN political, ideological and organisational work in their OWN region, where someday they will have to mobilise and lead the working masses to revolution.
In a series of articles on this web log (mostly in Dutch- but once I will translate all this) I already have illustrated this analysing the evolutions in the Workers Party of Belgium, with an analysis of conceptions by different cadres of the WPB as example.
Sympathisers with the socialist peoples republic of China can perhaps give positive facts that prove that China is STILL socialist, which is the reason that China deserves solidarity but also lie under the attack of pro-capitalist forces in the world. They try to give OTHER information. This is a good and necessary thing to do.
But I am fighting those who defend the authentically Marxist character of the economical policy actual in China and are claiming that socialism has been strengthened since 1978. Particularly when they are cadre in a, or representing a communist organisation. They are, I think; from the same calibre as Kautsky opposed by Lenin and named by him as « renegade ».
I will prove all this, being in fact the main goal of my analysis of the actual revisionism.
I want to prove now (being the next step in my analysis from the ACTUAL revisionism in the international communist movement) that the line of the CPC since 1978 is the OPPOSITE of the line of that same CPC before the dead of Mao Zedong.
All what the CPC was fighting against (with indeed a big contribution of Mao Zedong but ALSO what concerned the conceptions of Deng Xiaoping which he defended AT THAT TIME) is after 1978 becoming a part of the political line of the CPC!
Summarizing (and that is indeed simplifying) I think that you can say that de line of the CPC since 1978 is going back to the revisionist line that Liu Chaochi (in the years ‘50s) defended, in OPPOSITION with the line of Mao Zedong. The official line of the CPC you can see it as the result of the struggle between two lines (the revolutionary line and the bourgeois/revisionist line), and therefore reflects a temporary outcome of that struggle.

Deng Xiaoping:

« A question which now confronts you is how the Anshan Iron and Steel Company should be updated. Whenever foreign technology is introduced, we should first master it and then upgrade or renovate it. You have many tasks ahead of you at this point, such as the training of workers and cadres. If you fail to do so, then they will not be capable of acquiring advanced foreign technology. We had a serious lesson along these lines. It is important for us to seize the hour, because our country is going to introduce about 1,000 projects from other countries. All our technologies and equipment as well as supporting facilities should be modern and up to the highest standards of the 1970s. The world is advancing. If we do not develop our technology, we cannot catch up with the developed countries, let alone surpass them, and we shall be trailing behind at a snail's pace. We should take the world's advanced scientific and technological achievements as starting points for our country's development. Such a lofty aspiration should be ours.
It is a good idea for the Anshan Iron and Steel Company to cut down the number of its staff members and departments. As for those units to be dissociated from the company, it is important that it should not have too many administrators or staff personnel. Large numbers of people in a modern and automated enterprise lead only to poor management. A steel enterprise with an annual output of six million tons in Japan has only 600 administrators, whereas the Anshan Iron and Steel Company with the same annual output has 23,000 managerial personnel. This is surely unreasonable. When advanced technology and equipment are imported, we must run enterprises with advanced management and operation techniques and set attainable quotas. In other words, we should manage the economy in accordance with the laws governing economic development. In a word, we need a revolution instead of just reforming the economy.
If we want to update enterprises so that their technology and management can reach the required level, we must have qualified managerial staff and workers. After technological upgrading, large numbers of workers with relatively high educational and technological levels should appear, otherwise new technologies and equipment cannot be used. All cadres and workers should be evaluated. Those who are unqualified should be designated as supernumerary personnel. Their livelihood should be guaranteed, but they cannot enjoy the same treatment as assigned personnel. They should be organized to study and receive training so as to become qualified for new jobs. We should resolve to accomplish this task.
Qualified managerial staff and workers should enjoy better treatment, so that the principle of distribution according to work can be truly carried out.[1]
»

« We should take the world's advanced scientific and technological achievements as starting points for our country's development. »
« When advanced technology and equipment are imported, we must run enterprises with advanced management and operation techniques and set attainable quotas. In other words, we should manage the economy in accordance with the laws governing economic development.
»
« Large numbers of workers with relatively high educational and technological levels should appear…Those who are unqualified should be designated as supernumerary personnel. Their livelihood should be guaranteed, but they cannot enjoy the same treatment as assigned personnel. They should be organized to study and receive training so as to become qualified for new jobs. … Qualified managerial staff and workers should enjoy better treatment, so that the principle of distribution according to work can be truly carried out. »

Here Deng Xiaoping is very clear in what he means by « development of productive forces ». Sometimes Marx spoke very general about « productive forces » (and of course Deng Xiaoping, and other revisionists will use in an eclecticist way these quotes) But MOSTLY Marx talked about the most important productive force, « the working class » and about her « development » and « ripening ». He was talking about development of political and ideological consciousness and development of her organisational strength in function of that consciousness. And THAT is developing with the gaining of understanding the functioning and development of capitalism, by experiences in class struggle, by the discussion (or political and ideological struggle) In the working class itself, and gaining knowledge about scientific socialism (often through intellectuals who, mostly coming out of the bourgeoisie, definitively chose to become part of the working class and want to be a part of her revolutionary mission)
Deng speaks about technology and its implementation as if it has no class character as if they are « neutral ». In his eyes the « avant-garde » of the working class are those who have knowledge about « modern technology » and about « modern management techniques ». Here we are far away from one of the achievements of the Cultural Revolution: being RED and EXPERT.
It will be easier for people, once part of the bourgeoisie and having the possibilities to study, having foreign contacts, to fulfil at Deng’s criteria, than a peasant, being part over generations of the poor peasantry but enthusiast vanguard of the collectivisation movement in agriculture and now deciding becoming steel-worker
The most important reason for Deng Xiaoping of introducing the most advanced technologies is « to prove the superiority of socialism by passing the developed countries »: so being capable to COMPETE (and this means capitalist competition) with the bigger IMPERIALIST countries.

Deng Xiaoping:

«For a certain period of time, learning advanced science and technology from the developed countries was criticized as "blindly worshiping foreign things". We have come to understand how stupid this argument is. Therefore, we have sent many people abroad to familiarize themselves with the outside world. China cannot develop by closing its door, sticking to the beaten track and being self-complacent.
Due to the interference of Lin Biao
and the Gang of Four, China's development was held up for ten years. In the early 1960s, we were behind the developed countries in science and technology, but the gap was not so wide. However, over the past dozen years, the gap has widened because the world has been developing with tremendous speed. Compared with developed countries, China's economy has fallen behind at least ten years, perhaps 20, 30, or even 50 years in some areas. What will the world be like in 22 years at the end of the century? What will those developed countries, including your country, be like after 22 years of further development based on the development of the 1970s? It will be quite difficult for us to realize the four modernizations[2] so that we can reach your current level of development by the end of this century, let alone catch up with your country at that time. Therefore, to achieve the four modernizations, we must be adept at learning from other countries and we must obtain a great deal of foreign assistance. As a starting point in our development, we should introduce advanced technology and equipment from the rest of the world.
You ask us whether it runs counter to our past traditions to implement the policy of opening to the outside world. Our approach is to define new policies according to new circumstances, while retaining our best traditions. We must stick to that which has proven to be effective, and in particular, to our basic systems, that is, the socialist system and socialist public ownership, and we must never waver in doing so. We shall not allow a new bourgeoisie to come into being. We will introduce advanced technology for the purpose of expanding our productive forces and improving the people's living standards. This will benefit our socialist country and our socialist system. It is even closer to following our socialist system to find ways to achieve greater, better, faster, and more economical results in development than not to do so. [3]
»

Here Deng Xiaoping creates his own « history » were he can base on his revisionist analyse and can make the conclusions he WANT to make: development of COMMODITY-production (that finds its highest possible form in …. capitalism), winning the competition (and that can be no other than CAPITALIST competition) with the bigger IMPERIALIST countries, therefore generate surplus value through capitalist exploitation, and through a very high « economic growth » (so growth of Gross Domestic Product being the produced products at their sell-value so the pile of COMMODITIES) allow higher incomes, creating so a domestic market and a « harmonious » and « quiet » political climate. You can compare this with creation of the post war « welfare-states » like Germany or France until about 1980. Of course China has not the neo-colonial exploitation relation that the western imperialist countries have. But with his big surface and big population China creates his own « exploitation relation »; namely the domestic migrants

Deng Xiaoping creates a formulation of « a bad situation » or a « bad development»:

« For a certain period of time, learning advanced science and technology from the developed countries was criticized as "blindly worshiping foreign things". …China's development was held up for ten years. In the early 1960s, we were behind the developed countries in science and technology, … China's economy has fallen behind at least ten years, perhaps 20, 30, or even 50 years in some areas. »
And the responsibility of that « bad situation » or « bad development » lies by « Lin Biao and the Gang of Four
»

The Chinese revolution, the struggle not to let stagnate him on the level of the National Democratic Revolution by mobilising the workers in alliance with the peasants, to raise their consciousness (by political formation and discussion and by experiences based on the practice of class struggle), to go to socialism and to fight against revisionism….. It is all erased by Deng Xiaoping.
What is left only? « For a certain period of time, learning advanced science and technology from the developed countries was criticized as "blindly worshiping foreign things". We have come to understand how stupid this argument is. Therefore, we have sent many people abroad to familiarize themselves with the outside world. China cannot develop by closing its door, sticking to the beaten track and being self-complacent.
»
For Deng Xiaoping it was important to pull a line under EVERYTHING of the past that could stop his policy of « reform and opening ». At this moment Deng Xiaoping could only lay the blame on « Lin Biao and the Gang of Four ». Those five former cadres in the CPC are NOT judged by Deng Xiaoping on their possible mistakes in strengthening socialism, powerful attitude against imperialism, struggle against revisionism, raising a higher political and ideological consciousness by the working masses and their better and more correct way of developing class struggle and therefore a stronger proletarian dictatorship and the transformation of capitalist commodity- production and commodity economy in production in function of needs in a socialist plan economy.

The group round Lin Biao wanted, based on « left » sounding slogans (to use the revolutionary energy present by the working people), to bring an elite to power. Being not a strengthening of the proletarian dictatorship it could only be finally (in spite of all « left » phraseology)…. The bourgeois dictatorship (in the form of a militaristic fascist-like regime)
What is concerning the so-called « Gang of Four », it is more complicated. But one can say that Deng Xiaoping ties all his negative judgements on all that ever opposed the « consolidation of the national democratic revolution » and on all what was mobilising to go from the national democratic revolution further into the socialist revolution.
At THAT moment (in 1978, only two years after the dead of Mao Zedong) he could not attack all essential achievements of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, because he has to erase first the collective historic memory of the party members and « replace » it by his idealist and metaphysical conceptions. Therefore he is here just « attacking » the indeed opportunist and revisionist deviations that came forward in the Cultural Revolution.
When Deng Xiaoping is here comparing China’s « backwardness » with the situation in the « developed » (so BIG IMPERIALIST) countries,
he is fixed on a strong economic growth that make it possible to create a reasonable middleclass that will be the « patriotic » supporter of a policy that can only end in ….. a bourgeois dictatorship. That middleclass must support a policy that deteriorate the proletarian dictatorship, that means the (re)- introducing of « the workforce of the workers as a commodity », the strengthening of COMMODITY-production (where of the capitalist way of production is the HIGHEST form) working against the forming of socialist plan economy based on a production in function of needs.
Later we will see that Deng Xiaoping classifies China being a part of the Third World. Here he is comparing China with developed imperialist countries, putting the goal that China, by means of CAPITALIST competition, comes on the level of the biggest imperialist countries.
« Compared with developed countries, China's economy has fallen behind
» With this IDEA (= idealism, NOT materialism) Deng Xiaoping want to prove that socialist plan economy and a socialisation movement is NOT superior to COMMODITY-production-economy (of which capitalism is the highest possible form).
Otherwise Deng Xiaoping had compared China with THIRD WORLD countries that are (still) capitalist. (Like for example India or Brazil - Is it not Deng Xiaoping himself that classifies China in the third world countries??)
Because than would be obvious that China during the Great Leap Forward, was SUPERIOR to for example India during the « Green Revolution » at that same moment, or was SUPERIOR to the by the USA supported neo colonial policy in Brazil in THE SAME PERIOD meaning for the biggest part of the Brazilian people hunger, poverty, death squadrons and repression.

Do you think this a little extreme (you can always react - I will answer) that I get all this out of a quote out of a speech that Deng Xiaoping gave in 1978 to western journalists?
Well, in a next article I will analyse bigger parts out of a speech that Deng Xiaoping hold in 1978 on a national congress of Chinese unions. (I interupted the analyse of the texts of Deng Xiaoping to continue analysing revisionism out of another aspect of it, read this next article +explanation about this interuption)


[1] UPDATE ENTERPRISES WITH ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGERIAL EXPERTISE September 18, 1978, Excerpt from remarks made when hearing a report from the leading comrades of the Anshan Municipal Party Committee.

[2] These refer to the modernization of China's industry, agriculture, national defence and science and technology.

[3] CARRY OUT THE POLICY OF OPENING TO THE OUTSIDE WORLD AND LEARN ADVANCED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FROM OTHER COUNTRIES October 10, 1978, Excerpt from a talk with a press delegation from the Federal Republic of Germany.

woensdag 8 oktober 2008

About revisionism 6

In this article I will come back (read here the previous article) on conceptions that Khrushchev defended, and where judged as revisionism in the analyses of the CCP (in the sixties), texts that were edited by Deng Xiaoping who had the responsibility from the CCP to lead de discussions with the CP-USSR. Because the conceptions of Deng in 1978 were similar with those of Khrushchev, he has to erase a whole historical period in de development of the political line in the CCP. For me this is an example of historical idealism of a conscious revisionist.
You can
read here the « The letter of the Central Committee of the CP-USSR to the Central Committee of the CPC » of
30 march 1963.

In this letter is said:

« The formation of the world socialist system is a historic achievement of the international working class and of all the working people. This achievement is the incarnation of mankinds dreams of a new society. The growth of production and the vast achievements of science and engineering in the socialist countries have helped to provide the socialist community with an economic and military might that reliably defends the gains of socialism and also serves as a mighty mainstay of peace and security for the peoples of the world. [1]»

Anti-imperialist struggle, the need of socialist revolution, the proletarian dictatorship needed in the first stage of communism (that is in socialism), the continuing of class struggle under socialism, the need of a vanguard party of the proletariat, it is all gone by Khrushchev. We will see how it will all disappear by Deng Xiaoping. When capitalist production relations (commodity-production under capitalist exploitation to realize surplus value) are the best way to realize economic growth (formulated in piling of commodities produced and sold for their values, than class struggle and dictatorship are obstacles. The best way to mislead the working class and the members of the communist party is to develop a « Marxist » theory of disappearing classes and the existing of socialism and the socialist state « for the whole people ». And the vanguard party not of the proletariat only but of « the whole people » included the new managers that are realizing that economic growth based on capitalist production relations and who are allowed to have at least a part of de surplus value extracted of the labor of the workers.
Similar arguments are put forward by Deng Xiaoping for the arguing that China has first of all to increase production and to develop the production forces.

Further:

« The socialist system is exerting an ever-growing influence on the course of world development. The entire world revolutionary process is today developing under the direct influence of the great example provided by the new life in the countries of socialism. The more successfully the ideas of communism make their way to the minds and hearts of the general masses, the greater and more significant are our achievements in the building of socialism and communism. It is, therefore, clear that he who wants to bring closer the victory of socialism throughout the entire world should, in the first place, show concern for strengthening the great socialist community and its economic might, should seek to raise the standard of living of its peoples, develop science, engineering and culture, consolidate its unity and solidarity and the growth of its international authority. The Statement of the Moscow Meeting places the responsibility to the international working-class movement for the successful building of socialism and communism on the Marxist-Leninist Parties and the peoples of the socialist countries.
Tirelessly strengthening the world socialist system, the fraternal Parties and peoples of our countries make their contribution to the great cause of the struggle of the international working class, of all the working people, of the entire liberation movement for solving the basic problems of the day in the interests of peace, democracy and socialism.
[2]»

In fact he defend here that a strong economic growth is the internationalist task of the existing socialist country that the USSR is. The development of the production forces is the most important issue. So there fore class struggle, anti imperialist struggle are subjugated at the strong economic growth. An economic strong socialist country is the best (in fact the only possible) contribution to the world revolution.
This could be a arguing of Deng Xiaoping himself…. as I will prove later.

Further:

« Availing themselves of the conditions of peaceful coexistence, the socialist countries are scoring more and more victories in the economic competition with capitalism. Our adversaries realize that it is difficult for them to count on winning the competition against us. They are unable to keep up with the rapid economic advance of the socialist countries; they are powerless in the face of the appeal that the example of the socialist countries makes to the peoples under capitalisms yoke.
As the economy of the socialist commonwealth advances, the advantages and superiority of socialism, and the greater opportunities of the working people to obtain material and spiritual riches, as compared to capitalism, will display themselves more and more vividly. The rising standards of living the socialist countries are a great magnet for the working class of all the capitalist countries. The achievements of the socialist commonwealth will constitute a kind of catalyst, a revolutionizing factor in broadening the class struggle in the capitalist countries and enabling the working class to triumph over capitalism.
The peoples embarking on socialism inherit from the past economies and cultures at different levels. Regardless of this, however, socialism awakens mighty productive forces
as exemplified by the Soviet Union and the Peoples Democracies.
The Soviet Union has already outpaced the leading capitalist countries of Europe in economic development and has taken second place in the world; the time is not far off when it will take first place in the world. The other socialist countries have likewise gained great successes. The socialist system is so progressive by nature that it enables the peoples to swiftly eliminate their backwardness, to catch up with the more highly-developed countries, and, marching in one rank with them, to fight for the building of communism.
All this inspires the peoples, giving them the conviction that they can embark upon the road of socialism and score achievements, regardless of their present level of historical development. The advance of the peoples to a new life is facilitated by their opportunity to select the best from the world
s experience in building socialism, taking into account both the merits and the shortcomings in the practices of socialist construction.
The faster the productive forces of the socialist countries develop, the higher their economic potential will rise, and the stronger the influence of the socialist community will become on the rate and trend of the whole of historical development in the interests of peace and of the complete triumph of socialism.
[3] »

So is said that the goal is, the only possible internationalist contribution is, the proof of the superiority of socialism is, to realize a bigger economic growth. (Formulated in terms of GDP this means in fact a bigger growth of commodity production) than equivalent imperialist powers. There fore the socialist power has to compete economically with equivalent imperialist powers. And therefore there has to be peaceful coexistence by all means.
So the most important force for the socialism becoming stronger is « the development of the productive forces ». It could be Deng Xiaoping speaking!
Deng Xiaoping was the cadre of the CPC to lead the discussion with the CPUSSR. So he had at least to defend the CPC point of view against the revisionist line of the CPUSSR.

You can read here the first answer of the CPC on the letter of de CPUSSR of 30 March 1963
As answer AGAINST the points of view of Khrushchev here above (and that are similar to that of Deng Xiaoping) the CPC (and also Deng Xiaoping at
that moment) said
[4]:

« Lenins principle of peaceful coexistence is very clear and readily comprehensible by ordinary people. Peaceful coexistence designates a relationship between countries with different social systems, and must not be interpreted as one pleases.
It should never be extended to apply to the relations between oppressed and oppressor nations, between oppressed and oppressor countries or between oppressed and oppressor classes, and never be described as the main content of the transition from capitalism to socialism, still less should it be asserted that peaceful coexistence is mankind
s road to socialism. The reason is that it is one thing to practice peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems.
It is absolutely impermissible and impossible for countries practicing peaceful coexistence to touch even a hair of each other
s social system. The class struggle, the struggle for national liberation and the transition from capitalism to socialism in various countries are quite another thing. They are all bitter, life-and-death revolutionary struggles which aim at changing the social system. Peaceful coexistence cannot replace the revolutionary struggles of the people. The transition from capitalism to socialism in any country can only be brought about through the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat in that country.
In the application of the policy of peaceful coexistence, struggles between the socialist and imperialist countries are unavoidable in the political, economic and ideological spheres, and it is absolutely impossible to have
all-round co-operation.
It is necessary for the socialist countries to engage in negotiations of one kind or another with the imperialist countries.
It is possible to reach certain agreements through negotiation by relying on the correct policies of the socialist countries and on the pressure of the people of all countries. But necessary compromises between the socialist countries and the imperialist countries do not require the oppressed peoples and nations to follow suit and compromise with imperialism and its lackeys. No one should ever demand in the name of peaceful coexistence that the oppressed peoples and nations should give up their revolutionary struggles.
The application of the policy of peaceful coexistence by the socialist countries is advantageous for achieving a peaceful international environment for socialist construction, for exposing the imperialist policies of aggression and war and for isolating the imperialist forces of aggression and war. But if the general line of the foreign policy of the socialist countries is confined to peaceful coexistence, then it is impossible to handle correctly either the relations between socialist countries or those between the socialist countries and the oppressed peoples and nations. Therefore it is wrong to make peaceful coexistence the general line of the foreign policy of the socialist countries.
In our view, the general line of the foreign policy of the socialist countries should have the following content: to develop relations of friendship, mutual assistance and cooperation among the countries in the socialist camp in accordance with the principle of proletarian internationalism; to strive for peaceful coexistence on the basis of the Five Principles with countries having different social systems and oppose the imperialist policies of aggression and war; and, to support and assist the revolutionary struggles of all the oppressed peoples and nations.
These three aspects are interrelated and indivisible, and not a single one can be omitted.
[5] »

To develop his version of « peaceful coexistence » (I will give his arguments in his texts later) Deng Xiaoping has to erase the points of view that the CPC defended in the sixties (and that Deng himself has to defend, as the responsible cadre of the CPC to lead the discussion with the CP-USSR) out of the historic collective memory of the CPC.
Because in 1963 the CPC (and Deng Xiaoping also!) said further:

« For a very long historical period after the proletariat takes power, class struggle continues as an objective law independent of mans will, differing only in form from what it was before the taking of power.
After the October Revolution, Lenin pointed out a number of times that:
a. The overthrown exploiters always try in a thousand and one ways to recover the
paradise they have been deprived of.
b. New elements of capitalism are constantly and spontaneously generated in the petty-bourgeois atmosphere.
c. Political degenerates and new bourgeois elements may emerge in the ranks of the working class and among government functionaries as a result of bourgeois influence and the pervasive, corrupting atmosphere of the petty bourgeoisie.
d. The external conditions for the continuance of class struggle within a socialist country are encirclement by international capitalism, the imperialists
threat of armed intervention and their subversive activities to accomplish peaceful disintegration.
Life has confirmed these conclusions of Lenin
s.
For decades or even longer periods after socialist industrialization and agricultural collectivization, it will be impossible to say that any socialist country will be free from those elements which Lenin repeatedly denounced, such as bourgeois hangers-on, parasites, speculators, swindlers, idlers, hooligans and embezzlers of state funds; or to say that a socialist country will no longer need to perform or be able to relinquish the task laid down by Lenin of conquering
this contagion, this plague, this ulcer that socialism has inherited from capitalism.
In a socialist country, it takes a very long historical period gradually to settle the question of who will win
socialism or capitalism. The struggle between the road of socialism and the road of capitalism runs through this whole historical period. This struggle rises and falls in a wave-like manner, at times becoming very fierce, and the forms of the struggle are many and varied.
The 1957 Declaration rightly states that
the conquest of power by the working class is only the beginning of the revolution, not its conclusion.
To deny the existence of class struggle in the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the necessity of thoroughly completing the socialist revolution on the economic, political and ideological fronts is wrong, does not correspond to objective reality and violates Marxism-Leninism. »

To defend the Marxist base of his economic policy of « reform and opening » he has to make of the point of view here above of the CPC in answer to the revisionist line Khrushchev (and the point of view that he has defended at that time) a « left opportunist line » So he is historical idealist in stead of historical materialist..
Further the CPC(and Deng) in 1963:

« What will happen if it is announced, halfway through, that the dictatorship of the proletariat is no longer necessary?
Does this not fundamentally conflict with the teachings of Marx and Lenin on the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat?
Does this not license the development of
this contagion, this plague, this ulcer that socialism has inherited from capitalism?
In other words, this would lead to extremely grave consequences and make any transition to communism out of the question.
Can there be a
state of the whole people? Is it possible to replace the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat by a state of the whole people?
This is not a question about the internal affairs of any particular country but a fundamental problem involving the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism.
In the view of Marxist-Leninists, there is no such thing as a non-class or supra-class state. So long as the state remains a state, it must bear a class character; so long as the state exists, it cannot be a state of the
whole people. As soon as society becomes classless, there will no longer be a state.
Then what sort of thing would a
state of the whole people be?
Anyone with an elementary knowledge of Marxism-Leninism can understand that the so-called
state of the whole people is nothing new. Representative bourgeois figures have always called the bourgeois state a state of all the people, or a state in which power belongs to all the people.[6]

To defend the development of capitalism and the weakening of the proletarian dictatorship, Deng has to defend that « in fact there is no more a real capitalist CLASS" in China, because seen formally there is quasi -none existing no more private ownership of means of production. So capitalists, that accept the (actual) program and statutes of the communist party, can become member (the communist party as vanguard of the proletariat has no real meaning when the capitalist class no longer exists). So the point of view, that was that of the CPC itself (and defended by Deng himself can so be catalogued as « left opportunism ».

This counts also for the point of view of the CPC of 1963 (and that of Deng himself) that is now following:

« Leninism holds that the proletarian party must exist together with the dictatorship of the proletariat in socialist countries. The party of the proletariat is indispensable for the entire historical period of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The reason is that the dictatorship of the proletariat has to struggle against the enemies of the proletariat and of the people, remould the peasants and other small producers, constantly consolidate the proletarian ranks, build socialism and effects the transition to communism; none of these things can be done without the leadership of the party of the proletariat.
Can there be a
party of the entire people? Is it possible to replace the party which is the vanguard of the proletariat by a party of the entire people?
This, too, is not a question about the internal affairs of any particular Party, but a fundamental problem involving the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism.
In the view of Marxist-Leninists, there is no such thing as a non-class or supra-class political party. All political parties have a class character. Party spirit is the concentrated expression of class character.
The party of the proletariat is the only party able to represent the interests of the whole people. It can do so precisely because it represents the interests of the proletariat, whose ideas and will it concentrates. It can lead the whole people because the proletariat can finally emancipate itself only with the emancipation of all mankind, because the very nature of the proletariat enables its party to approach problems in terms of its present and future interests, because the party is boundlessly loyal to the people and has the spirit of self-sacrifice; hence its democratic centralism and iron discipline.
Without such a party, it is impossible to maintain the dictatorship of the proletariat and to represent the interests of the whole people.
What will happen if it is announced halfway before entering the higher stage of communist society that the party of the proletariat has become a
party of the entire people and if its proletarian class character is repudiated?
Does this not fundamentally conflict with the teachings of Marx and Lenin on the party of the proletariat? Does this not disarm the proletariat and all the working people, organizationally and ideologically, and is it not tantamount to helping restore capitalism? Is it not
going south by driving the chariot north to talk about any transition to communist society in such circumstances?[7] »

In next articles (beginning here with this article) I will show how the formulation of the conceptions of Deng Xiaoping develops in time. I will use the chronology of texts out of Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping. You will see for example how « working class », « class struggle », « proletarian dictatorship » is gradually disappearing from 1978 to the eighties.



[1] Out of « THE POLEMIC ON THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT », « THE LETTER OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CPSU TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CPC » (March 30, 1963), FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS PEKING 1965, From Marx to Mao ML © Digital Reprints 2006

[2] Out of « THE POLEMIC ON THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT », « THE LETTER OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CPSU TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CPC » (March 30, 1963), FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS PEKING 1965, From Marx to Mao ML © Digital Reprints 2006

[3] Out of « THE POLEMIC ON THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT », « THE LETTER OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CPSU TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CPC » (March 30, 1963), FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS PEKING 1965, From Marx to Mao ML © Digital Reprints 2006

[4] The whole text of “The Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in Reply to the Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of March 30, 1963 » (June 14, 1963) you can read here.

[5] Out of « THE POLEMIC ON THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT »,“A PROPOSAL CONCERNING THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT”: “The Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in Reply to the Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of March 30, 1963”(June 14, 1963), FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS PEKING 1965, From Marx to Mao ML © Digital Reprints 2006.

[6] Out of « THE POLEMIC ON THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT », « A PROPOSAL CONCERNING THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT- The Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in Reply to the Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of March 30, 1963 » (June 14, 1963), FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS PEKING 1965, From Marx to Mao ML © Digital Reprints 2006

[7] Out of « THE POLEMIC ON THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT », « A PROPOSAL CONCERNING THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT- The Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in Reply to the Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of March 30, 1963 » (June 14, 1963), FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS PEKING 1965, From Marx to Mao ML © Digital Reprints 2006

donderdag 2 oktober 2008

Het plan Mertens-Cottenier: verkiezings- of strijdobjectief?

Het Plan Mertens-Cottenier” zoals dat staat in het artikel (hier te lezen) op de website van de PVDA:

“Voor ons is het erom te doen dat publieke bedrijven de kans krijgen om een meer sociale politiek te voeren en méér dienstverlenend te zijn, maar dat maakt zo ook minder concurrentieel. Om in leven te blijven in een context van kapitalistische logica vereist dit meestal staatstussenkomst en subsidies. “
“Wanneer wij de heroprichting vragen van een publieke bank dan is het omdat die bank zich niet met dezelfde speculatieve operaties zou inlaten als de banken die nu dreigen overkop te gaan. En dat de spaarcenten bij voorkeur belegd worden in sociale en milieuprojecten. Als die bank subsidies nodig heeft om te overleven dan moet dat kunnen. Men kan dit uitbreiden naar andere openbare bedrijven zoals de post, het spoor, de telecommunicatie. “
“De wilde wet van het kapitalisme, de jacht op altijd maar méér winst, heeft de catastrofes uitgelokt die we vandaag meemaken in de banksector. In andere publieke sectoren leidt het tot onaanvaardbare sociale afbraak en afbraak van de dienstverlening.
Daarom moeten de artikels 81, 82 en 86 uit het Europees Verdrag verdwijnen en moet het recht op staatsmonopolies en staatssteun voor openbare bedrijven erkend worden.”
“Peter Mertens noemt de huidige inbreng van de regering niet meer dan ‘een verkapte subsidie’, een ‘nationalisatie van de verliezen’ in plaats van een onteigening van de bank. “De 6,7 miljard die nu in Fortis en Dexia worden gestoken stellen de toekomst van de spaarrekeningen geenszins veilig. Wat Yves Leterme of Didier Reynders ook mogen beweren. Alleen een echte publieke bank, met strenge criteria en een volledig transparant beleid kan een oplossing bieden.”

“Het PVDA-plan voor een volledig openbare bank
1. De spaarcenten van jan en alleman veilig stellen

.De PVDA wil….
… dat de garantie opgetrokken wordt tot 100.000 euro.
… het garantiefonds herfinancieren door een crisisbelasting op zeer grote vermogens (van meer dan 1 miljoen euro).
… dat ook de verantwoordelijken voor het bankbeleid, zoals Lippens, Votron en Co een bijdrage leveren aan het fonds. We stellen voor dat de 'opstappremie' van deze heren integraal in het fonds wordt gestort.

2. Een echte nationalisatie van de Fortis- en Dexia-bank tot een openbare bank

De PVDA wil….
… dat Fortis en Dexia in twee worden gesplitst, een volledig privé en een volledig publiek deel, als opstap naar een publieke bank.
… dat het geld dat de staat en de gemeenten nu uitgeven voor kapitaalverhogingen, de basis vormt voor een volledig openbare bank. Dat is een omgekeerde operatie als de privatisering van ASLK en Gemeentekrediet. Tussen 1993 en 1998 werd de ASLK progressief opgekocht door Fortis en het Gemeentekrediet kwam in handen van Dexia. De aandelen van Fortis en Dexia die in handen zijn van kleine aandeelhouders kunnen omgewisseld worden in aandelen van de staatsbank.
… dat iedere spaarder vrij kan beslissen aan welk deel hij zijn geld toevertrouwt.
… dat, als de crisis ook andere banken op de knieën krijgt, hetzelfde proces wordt overgedaan.
… dat in de toekomst kan beslist worden om ook het privédeel te nationaliseren.

3. Een echte publieke bank, met strenge criteria en een transparant beheer

De PVDA wil…
… dat er een coherente publieke controle komt op de bestedingen en de inkomsten van de bank.
… dat er in het bestuur van een openbare bank geen privékapitalisten toegelaten worden.
… dat de strategie en de financiële politiek van de bank vastgelegd wordt in strenge codes tegen speculatie en onderworpen wordt aan strenge publieke controle.
… dat de investeringen en kredieten prioritair gebruikt worden voor publieke projecten, voor sociale woningbouw, hospitalen...
… dat België een voorbeeld neemt aan het Noorse soevereine staatsfonds dat een strenge deontologische code volgt.

4. Een beweging starten tegen het liberale doemdenken en het dogma van de privatisering

De PVDA wil…
… opnieuw een volwaardige publieke sector. …
… dat de Europese regels, die beperkingen opleggen aan subsidiëring van staatsbedrijven en die staatsmonopolies verbieden, herzien worden.

5. Maatregelen om de totale bewegingsvrijheid van de privébanken te beperken

De PVDA wil tot slot…
… de opheffing van het bankgeheim. …
… een verbod op belangenvermenging. …”

Zijn dit verkiezingsordewoorden, strijdobjectieven of nog iets anders?

Is dit is “een voorstel” dat de PVDA wil voorleggen als verkiezingsprogramma, als ordewoorden van een sindikale strijdbeweging? Is dit dan “het hoogste en meest revolutionaire” wat de werkende klasse zich als strijdobjectief mag of moet nemen? En moet zij dan doorstrijden totdat volledig voldaan wordt aan deze concrete objectieven?
Er wordt hier totaal voorbij gegaan aan hoe strijdbewegingen onstaan, zich ontwikkelen en hoe bepaalde “verworvenheden” gerealiseerd worden.

Nochtans citeert de PVDA zelf Lenin in haar congresteksten van het Vijfde Congres waar die zegt:
“ Het proletariaat strijd en zal verder blijven strijden om de vroegere macht te vernietigen. Heel zijn propaganda, zijn agitatie, zijn organisatie en zijn mobilisatiemachine zijn daarom gericht. Als het er niet in slaagt de macht volledig te vernietigen, zal het op zijn minst een gedeeltelijke vernietiging beogen, maar het zal dergelijke partiële actie nooit positief voorstellen om de steun van het volk te vragen. Men steunt een daadwerkelijke strijd van hen die het maxismum proberen te bereiken ( en die in geval van mislukking het minimum bereiken). Maar men steunt geen opportunisten die al op de doelstellingen afknibbelen, nog voor de strijd is begonnen”
[1]
“De revolutionaire klassenstrijd is de echte motor van de geschiedenis. De hervormingen zijn een nevenresultaat van de strijd en drukken slechts mislukte pogingen uit om deze strijd te verzwakken, minder scherp te maken…
De eerste doctrine is
materialistisch, de tweede idealistisch. De eerste is revolutionair, de tweede reformistisch. De eerste vormt de basis voor de tactiek van het proletariaat in de kapitalistische landen, de tweede de tactiek van de burgerij….
Uit de eerste visie volgt de revolutionaire, autonome tactiek van de voorhoedeklasse. In geen geval kunnen we onze taken beperken tot steun aan de meest verspreide ordewoorden van de hervormingsgezinde burgerij. We voeren een onafhankelijke politiek en stellen slechts ordewoorden voor, die hervormingen nastreven die onbetwistbaar de belangen van de revolutionaire strijd dienen en die ontbetwistbaar de onafhankelijkheid, het bewustzijn en de strijdbaarheid van het proletariaat verhogen. Alleen deze tactiek laat ons toe de hervormingen te neutraliseren die van boven komen, zij zijn altijd dubbelzinnig, altijd schijnheilig en steeds vol valstrikken van burgerij en politie…
In de practijk is het juist door deze revolutionaire, onafhankelijke , massale en verbeten klassenstrijd dat hervormingen worden afgedwongen…
Door onze ordewoorden te vermengen met deze van de hervormingsgezinde burgerij, verzwakkken we de revolutionaire zaak, en bijgevolg ook deze van de hervormingen, want we verminderen zo de onafhankelijkheid, de onverzettelijkheid en de kracht van de revolutionaire krachten.”
[2]

De teksten van het Vijfde Congres geven verder in feite een richtlijn voor kaders als Jo Cottenier en Peter Mertens:

“Vanuit het standpunt van het proletariaat is de socialistische revolutie een objectieve noodzaak en duwt heel de historische evolutie in die richting.
Vanuit
het standpunt van de burgerij is de socialistische revolutie een schadelijke, zelfs een misdadige utopie.
Strijden de kaders voortdurend om in staat te zijn steeds hogere taken te kunnen opnemen of zetten zij stappen terug naar lagere taken?
Zijn taken op een laag niveau vastleggen betekent: aanvaarden dat de hoge taken van de revolutie niet worden gerealiseerd, zich op voorhand reeds instellen op de mislukking van de revolutionaire strijd en zich neerleggen bij het behoud van het kapitalisme. Wie de klassenstrijd met dergelijke ideologie “leidt”, zal de arbeidersklasse altijd naar de capitulatie en de nederlaag leiden.
De opportunisten geloven niet dat de hoogste taken van de revolutie “realiseerbaar” zijn. Zij spreken erover voor de vorm maar de revolutie is niet in hun concrete handelingen aanwezig. Volgens hen zal het niet mogelijk zijn de hoogste taken te verwezenlijken, men moet zich houden aan wat vandaag mogelijk is. En wat mogelijk is, is wat reeds gebeurt, hetgeen waarvoor de arbeiders nu vechten. De huidige strijd, de huidige beweging, het huidige werk is alle; het uiteindelijke doel, de socialistische revolutie, is niets, is niet te verwezenlijken, bepaalt noch oriënteert het huidige werk.”

Mijn standpunt (is niet de waarheid in pacht dus weerleg of kritiseer ze maar. Het doel is te komen tot een echte revolutionaire politieke lijn voor een echt revolutionaire organisatie!):

1. Het imperialisme zit in een algemene crisis waar zij niet meer kan uitgeraken

De “financiële crisis” is een opstoot van de fundamentele crises waarin het kapitalisme, het imperialisme zit. Het kapitalisme is een rem op de ontplooing van een menswaardig bestaan voor een groot deel van de mensheid. Het kapitalisme produceert haalt haar meerwaarde uit die productie voor een “koopkrachtige vraag” van hooguit 1 miljard mensen waarvan het grootste deel werkers die hun inkomen verwerven door hun arbeidskracht te verkopen.
Door de toenemende uitbuiting wereldwijd hebben steeds meer “werkers” (de afrikanen die gronstoffen delven voor onze computers, gsm het goud en de diamanten enz) niet genoeg arbeidsloon om zelf maar een kleine “koopkracht” te hebben om de in kapitalistische poduktiewijze geproduceerde waren (terug) te KOPEN.
De grote imperialistische staten organiseren voor “hun” kapitalisten de mogelijkheden om de uitbuitingsgraad steeds verder te verhogen. (de aanval op de door “indirect” loon gefinancierde sociale zekerheid, gezondheidszorg, onderwijs, openbaar vervoer, sociale huisvesting, en alle vormen van “vervangings”inkomens)
Oorlog wordt steeds meer een optie om onrust te bedwingen, de wereld te herverdelen, de kapitalistische wereldorde te garanderen, als “alibi” om op het “thuis”front het masker van de parlementaire demockratie te laten vallen.
Maar ook in de “westerse” regio's botst de steeds productievere produktie (onder invloed van de kapitalistische concurrentie) tegen de afnemende “koopkracht”. Gevolg: de anarchie en de chaos en de planloosheid van het kapitalisme uit zich in een chronische overcapaciteit.
De “financiële crisis” is een gevolg van de poging om krampachtige poging binnen de kapitalistenklasse de nog mogelijk te realiseren meerwaarde uit de kapitalistische producktie (die in overcapaciteitscrisis zit) te herverdelen tussen te kapitalisten.

2. De socialistische revolutie is een noodzaak

Er is maar één oplossing, één vorm van internationale solidariteit, één vorm van taak en plicht voor de werkers ook in de nog “leefbare” imperialistische regios tegenover hun klassegenoten in Afrika, Azië, het gehele Amerikaanse continent : de socialistische revolutie, onteigening van de kapitalisten, het invoeren van socialistische planeconomie (die het alternatief is voor de hoogste vorm van waren-produktieeconomie dat het kapitalisme is). Concreet kan dit maar gebeuren door plaatselijke doorbraken in het wereld-imperialisme doordat de werkers die al door hun kapitalistische staatsmacht door één uitbuitingspolitiek “objectief aanééngesloten worden” zich bewust in één grote werkersstrijdorganisatie organiseren om die kapitalistische staat ten val te brengen.
Door de vele vormen van strijd waarvan de steeds bewuster wordende werkers steeds beter beginnen te beseffen dat het geen strijd is tegen één bedrijf, één regering van een lidstaat, maar tegen de kapitalistische staat Europa die met alle middelen moet het voortbestaan van het kapitalisme beschermen en de concurrentiekracht van “haar” kapitalisten verhogen.
Binnen de werkersklasse in strijd gewikkeld ontwikkelt zich een meer bewustere voorhoede die probeert de minder bewuste middengroepen “mee te krijgen”. Om de uiteindelijke taak aan te kunnen van één grote werkersstrijdorganisatie uit te bouwen die het revolutionaire strijd met het kapitalisme zal voeren, moeten de inzichten van het
wetenschappelijk socialisme deel worden van het politiek bewustzijn van het grootste deel van de werkende klasse.
Bij de voorhoede zullen die inzichten eerder verworven worden. Historisch gezien zullen die inzichten het eerst en het best uitgebouwd kunnen onstaan bij intelectuelen die de tijd en de mogelijkheden hiertoe hebben (doordat zij vaak afkomstig zijn uit de burgerij) De voorhoede van de werkende klasse kan maar tenvolle zich het
wetenschappelijk socialisme eigen maken doordat er intelectuelen zich inplanten IN de werkende klasse en er deel van uit gaan maken. Ten tweede leert de historische ervaring dat de voorhoede binnen de werkende klasse die de ambitie heeft zich het wetenschappelijk socialisme eigen te maken én de intelectuelen die de ambitie hebben om actief deel uit te maken van de voorhoede van de werkende klasse, één eengemaakte organisatie vormen die - zo leert de historische ervaring – samengevat, voldoet aan de “leninistische partijbeginselen”.
Eén van de redenen waarom die voorhoede-organisatie actief meewerkt aan de uitbouw van die eengemaakte massa arbeidersstrijdorganisatie (ik noem ze voorlopig ter verduidelijking “radenorganisatie” of Soviets omdat het meer zal zijn dan louter een Europese eenheidsvakbond) omdat die”radenorganisatie” DE transmissieriem zal zijn om het wetenschappelijk socialisme
binnen te brengen in het bewustzijn van de meerderheid van Europese werkers.
De CONCRETE strijdobjectieven (als men ze voorstelt) moeten een
antikapitalistisch antwoord zijn op de verzuchtingen waarrond de strijd losbreekt. Het moet NIET een mogelijke verworvenheid zijn die de kapitalisten zullen toestaan om de zich ontwikkelende strijd rond strijdobjectieven die steeds meer het voortbestaan van het kapitalisme zelf bedreigen, te doen ophouden. Die “toegelaten” verworvenheden zullen altijd vergezeld gaan van medogenloze repressie opdat de arbeidersstrijd stopt en genoegen neemt met die (tijdelijke) “verworvenheden”.
Het is historisch altijd de rol geweest van burgerlijke “infiltranten” in de rangen van de strijdende werkers om elke strijd die een gevaar betekent voor het voortbestaan van het kapitalisme “af te leiden” naar “hervormingen” BINNEN het kapitalisme en die voor te stellen als uiteindelijk te voldoen aan de “verzuchtingen” die de directe aanleiding vormde voor de strijd.

Wat te doen (volgens mij) voor een revolutionaire voorhoedeorganisatie?

Er is:
-De strijd in al de sectoren tegen de gevolgen van de overcapaciteitscrisis (bv in de automobiel), voor behoud van alle vormen van sociale zekerheid (waaronder bijvoorbeeld de pensioenen) in de verschillende Europese landen,
- de strijd voor de verhoging van de koopkracht OOK in de verschillende landen van Europa ( maar eigenlijk een strijd tegen de verhoogde uitbuitingsgraad die overal in Europa de TOTALE loonkost moet verlagen –inbegrip van vormen van indirect loon)
-De strijd tegen de prijs
verhoging van levensnoodzakelijke produkten: gezondheidszorg, onderwijs, woning, energie, water, vormen van (tele-)communicatie, vormen van mobiliteit die IN FEITE een VERLAGING betekenen van het arbeidsloon
-De strijd BINNEN die kapitalistische bedrijven (of ze nu (lid-)staatsbedrijven zijn of niet)die die levensnoodzakelijke produkten produceren voor behoud van werk, loon en werkvoorwaarden
-De strijd tegen de financiële inflatie van het arbeidsloon, hetgeen een verlaging (en zelfs een vernietiging van opgespaard arbeidsloon) inhoudt tengevolge van het ingrijpen van de (Europese) staat
ter bescherming van het voortbestaan van de grote kapitalistische groepen.

De strategie van de voorhoede van de werkende klasse moet (op zijn minst) gericht worden op het aaneensluiten van deze deelstrijden die in feite verzuchtingen hebben die gericht zijn tegen de kapitalistische belangen, het aaneensluiten van de verschillende sindikale strijdorganisaties in Europa om vervolgens te strijden (als minimumgenoegdoening voor de verzuchtingen waarvoor de strijd losbarstte) voor de onteigening van de verschillende vaak onderling concurerende kapitalistische monopolies en onderbrengen in een Europees overheidsbedrijf in de betreffende sector, die onder controle staat van de eengemaakte strijdorganisatie van Europese werkers.

De strategie van de eengemaakte Europese revolutionaire voorhoede-organisatie heeft twee hoofdpeilers:
1. De werking van de voorhoedekrachten in de werkende klasse via hun actieve deelname aan de strijd moet uiteindelijk op het bovenstaande gericht zijn.
2. De propaganda (in al haar vormen) van de Europese revolutionaire voorhoedeorganisatie moet deze werking van haar leden ingeplant in de werkende klasse ondersteunen doordat zij de volledige politieke lijn en de te volgen strategie van de eengemaakte strijd op alle verschillende plaatsen kan propageren.



[1] Lenin, Combat pour le pouvoir et “combat” pour une aumone (14 juni 1906), in Oevres Deel II, Editions du Progrès Moskou, 1966, p. 24-25.

[2] Lenin, Encore à propos du ministère issu de la Douma (28 juni 1906), in Oevres Deel II, Editions du Progrès Moskou, 1966, p. 67-68.