Fighting opportunism to beat revisionism 3

Beating revisionism means continuously fighting opportunism
The analyse that Ludo Martens wrote about the developments of revisionism in the USSR, was the main text, that was to be discussed, to be amended and to be voted on the Fourth Congress of the WPB in 1992.
The original point of view that existed in the party about Kroutchov, the period of Breznjev, the coming of Gorbatjov, the fall of socialism in the USSR and the very superficial analyses that a lot of cadres made, were the main reasons for Ludo Martens, as leading president of the WPB, to make that analyse and to insist of having a Congress of the WPB, with this analyse as main document. The result of that fourth congress was the book « USSR, velvet contra revolution »
After the fourth Congress, Ludo Martens noted no significant progress in the revolutionary spirit of a lot of cadres. At the same time, and allowed by the party, he was spending a lot of time and energy with his political and ideological help to the possible revolution in the former Belgian colony, Congo.
Beside himself there were no very much cadres who had the political and ideological capacities to lead the party in at least a collective leadership. Instead of that there were some cadres who capitulated.
Therefore one can say without exaggeration say that Ludo Martens was the most important force to organise the Fifth Congress of the WPB in 1995.
Beside himself, different cadres had to write a project text, or a project resolution that would be proposed to, discussed on, amended and voted on that congress.
After that congress, out of all the voted congress documents, a book was edited and published: « Party of the Revolution ». (you can read here in a regularly updated file the progress of a translation in English of at least the most significant parts.

I was delegate on that Congress and I had to study on some texts (there were different workgroups round different proposed texts) the most important amendments on a specific text was made in the workgroup round that text. But all texts could be studied by all the delegates. And every delegate could make an amendment of every text. The amendments were grouped and than in the plenum, every text with his amendments was voted. And always someone could defend the amendment and someone could attack the same amendment.
But because the existing lack of good knowledge of Marxism, the existing of important forms of political and ideological opportunism (that were in fact the REASONS to ORGANISE that congress!)still present on the congress itself, those forms of opportunism were not totally beaten in the congress documents themselves. Therefore you can notice in the book « Party of the revolution » the development of a revolutionary line, some opportunism included IN that revolutionary line, some opportunist chapters and even development of a revisionist line.
You can discover point of views in that same book that in fact CONTRADICT each other….
I have to make my own self critic that I studied Marxism in a dogmatic way on that moment, so I could not notice not on the moment of the Fifth Congress itself, these contradictions.
Now, in 2008, I have tot conclude that apparently there was, and is a strong form of opportunist way of use of Marxism by the majority of the militants of the WPB. That is only reason that I can think of that comrades that become once member of the WPB because they discovered Marxism as analysing method to develop a strategy to revolution and the installing of socialism and because they want to become part of the working class to organise the vanguard to lead the working class to revolution…. but developed an opportunist (dogmatic) form of Marxism and so they were not aware of the development of revisionism in the party, becoming the leading line in 2004. In fact the same comrades agreed on the 8^th Congress that the WPB became a reformist party, with a reformist line. That same reformist line where those same comrades always fought against in the early years of the WPB! You can read here some reactions of comrades that I knew in the party and that knew me as well. I will discuss those reactions while analyzing “Party of the Revolution”.
Here you can read the chronology of the analyse of the development of revisionism that I already wrote (in English, because in Dutch I wrote already more).
In the next article I will begin with the analyse of “Party of the revolution”.

Fighting opportunism to beat revisionism 2

The analyse that Ludo Martens wrote about the developments of revisionism in the USSR, was the main text, that was to be discussed, to be amended and to be voted on the Fourth Congress of the WPB in 1992.
The original point of view that existed in the party about Kroutchov, the period of Breznjev, the coming of Gorbatjov, the fall of socialism in the USSR and the very superficial analyses that a lot of cadres made, were the main reasons for Ludo Martens, as leading president of the WPB, to make that analyse and to insist of having a Congress of the WPB, with this analyse as main document. The result of that fourth congress was the book « USSR, velvet contra revolution »
After the fourth Congress, Ludo Martens noted no significant progress in the revolutionary spirit of a lot of cadres. At the same time, and allowed by the party, he was spending a lot of time and energy with his political and ideological help to the possible revolution in the former Belgian colony, Congo.
Beside himself there were no very much cadres who had the political and ideological capacities to lead the party in at least a collective leadership. Instead of that there were some cadres who capitulated.
Therefore one can say without exaggeration say that Ludo Martens was the most important force to organise the Fifth Congress of the WPB in 1995.
Beside himself, different cadres had to write a project text, or a project resolution that would be proposed to, discussed on, amended and voted on that congress.
After that congress, out of all the voted congress documents, a book was edited and published: « Party of the Revolution ». (you can read here in a regularly updated file the progress of a translation in English of at least the most significant parts

I was delegate on that Congress and I had to study on some texts (there were different workgroups round different proposed texts) the most important amendments on a specific text was made in the workgroup round that text. But all texts could be studied by all the delegates. And every delegate could make an amendment of every text. The amendments were grouped and than in the plenum, every text with his amendments was voted. And always someone could defend the amendment and someone could attack the same amendment.
But because the existing lack of good knowledge of Marxism, the existing of important forms of political and ideological opportunism (that were in fact the REASONS to ORGANISE that congress!)still present on the congress itself, those forms of opportunism were not totally beaten in the congress documents themselves. Therefore you can notice in the book « Party of the revolution » the development of a revolutionary line, some opportunism included IN that revolutionary line, some opportunist chapters and even development of a revisionist line.
You can discover point of views in that same book that in fact CONTRADICT each other….
I have to make my own self critic that I studied Marxism in a dogmatic way on that moment, so I could not notice not on the moment of the Fifth Congress itself, these contradictions.
Now, in 2008, I have tot conclude that apparently there was, and is a strong form of opportunist way of use of Marxism by the majority of the militants of the WPB. That is only reason that I can think of that comrades that become once member of the WPB because they discovered Marxism as analysing method to develop a strategy to revolution and the installing of socialism and because they want to become part of the working class to organise the vanguard to lead the working class to revolution…. but developed an opportunist (dogmatic) form of Marxism and so they were not aware of the development of revisionism in the party, becoming the leading line in 2004. In fact the same comrades agreed on the 8^th Congress that the WPB became a reformist party, with a reformist line. That same reformist line where those same comrades always fought against in the early years of the WPB! You can read here some reactions of comrades that I knew in the party and that knew me as well. I will discuss those reactions while analyzing “Party of the Revolution”.
In the next article (when it is finished) I will begin with the analyse of “Party of the revolution”

Fighting opportunism to beat revisionism

I started my analysis, in English, about revisionism here with « Revisionism, the bourgeoisie inside the communist movement. (1) ». The title of that series of articles was inspired by the following quote of Ludo Martens, effective leading the Workers Party of Belgium until 1995:"After socialism is been destroyed in the Soviet union en the explosion of the country of Lenin, all communists has to understand that revisionism is the most dangerous ideological enemy of Marxism-Leninism. It’s beyond any doubt that revisionism represents the bourgeoisie inside the communist movement^[1]"

It is my opinion that I can prove that there is a development of revisionism in the international communist movement. That development of revisionism is based on and is using certain existing opportunist conceptions (in different communist parties). In some parties the revisionist line has become the main line in that party. At this moment this is the case of the once revolutionary Workers Party of Belgium. This was possible because the leading cadres succeeded (through different mechanisms, I will discus in later articles) in putting in the mind of the majority of the members, a conception of "Marxism" or "scientific socialism" which is in fact metaphysics and idealism formulated in "Marxist phraseology". That kind of leading cadres, perhaps once entered the party on revolutionary conceptions, on a certain moment positioned themselves on bourgeois class-point of view. Those cadres could mask their conceptions with Marxist phraseology easily, because they had often an encyclopaedic knowledge of publications, articles and books of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao Zedong.
I analysed of what I named revisionist conceptions, in a text produced by a cadre of the WPB, Peter Franssen.^[2]

I conclude that first series of articles (« Revisionism, the bourgeoisie inside the communist movement. (1- 7)- you can click from one article to the other) with some general working-methods of revisionism.
There is an IDEA, a CONCEPTION, and a POLICY that has to be to «proven» with a «Marxist» analysis that it is a historical fact, a consequent Marxist conception or a socialism stimulating policy. Those IDEAS, CONCEPTION, or POLICY are IN FACT anti-revolutionary, protecting the existence of capitalism and a policy of dismantling al the results of socialism. To give those ideas, conceptions or policies a « Marxist » apology, quotes of Marx, Engels, Lenin and also of Stalin and Mao Zedong are founded where they SEEMS to says exactly what the revisionists propose. General conclusions of Marx and others are for them concrete and specific proves of the correctness of the policy in a specific situation, totally different of the situation where the GENERAL conclusion is been made. Or a specific policy, to solve specific problems in a specific situation is « proven » to be exactly the same as the in fact antirevolutionary and capitalism protecting policy of the revisionist leaders. Therefore they use also the anti-Marxist conception of exact analogue situations in historical progress. The goal is to mislead party members and condemn, with chosen quotes of Marx and others each policy, each initiative of other party-cadres with still revolutionary ambitions to take steps towards revolution, or to strengthen to power of the working class, or to take steps to further building socialist plan economy and to diminish the still existing influence of capitalist commodity-production as « left », « sectarian » or « utopian socialism ».
To convince other party members, the revisionists made use of existing weakness of knowledge of Marxism, and existing forms of opportunism as dogmatism, empirism. They promote among the militants a spirit of militant ACTIVISM, which results in political suivism.

I will prove this with concrete analysis of the developments in the Workers Party of Belgium. In fact I began with this in a second series of articles, « About revisionism » (with the first one beginning here). I said that I want to make my analysis of the development of revisionism based on the concrete example of the Workers Party of Belgium in such a way that communists not member of the WPB but member of communist parties of other regions in the world can make their own opinion about my analysis.
That is the reason that I began with the revisionism in the analysis that cadres of the WPB made of the socialism in China. That is a subject where about each communist or communist organization can get information and mostly have their own analysis.
I started then with an analysis of a text (that you can read here, in french) that Boudewijn Deckers wrote. (You can read this beginning with this article) Boudewijn Deckers was after Ludo Martens the highest cadre in the WPB and before that in AMADA (Alle Macht Aan De Arbeiders -All Power to the Workers)

I see Ludo Martens as the protagonist of the revolutionary and real Marxist line in the WPB.

For me, Boudewijn Decker has become the protagonist of the revisionist line that developed inside the WPB.

On this very moment, in 2008, I say that by the work of the revisionist fraction (mostly leading cadres of the WPB) the WPB has become a REFORMIST party, a party that is working in the bourgeoisie legality and with a reformist program. It has been possible because of the lack of vigilance of the majority of the members. (I will indicate why and how later) Another example is the Socialist Party (SP) of the Netherlands, once the Communist Unity Movement (KEN-ML).The difference between the WPB and the SP is that the WPB, but only formal (and to position herself electoral between other « left » parties in Belgium) still claim that she based herself on Marxism and that her ultimate goal (somewhere in a far future) is socialism as a step to communism. You can follow in that series my comment on Boudewijn Deckers’ « Marxist » analyze of the socialism in China.

But for the good understanding of my analysis, I gave then (starting here) an example of how revisionism works and how revisionists ABUSE Marxism or the scientific socialism and spread IDEALISM and METAPHISICS under Marxist phraseology.
I used therefore the text of the Chinese economists of the CCP, I spoke about in my email (read here) to Boudewijn Deckers, leading cadre of the WPB. The text itself you can read here. To give (only) an example of the manner of arguing of revisionists I give some quotes out of this text.

I interrupted then my analysis of the development of revisionism using the example of Boudewijn Deckers, leading cadre of the WPB. Although it is a concrete example, it is an example in the perhaps rather unknown (and most of all of his INTERN contradictions) little communist party of a little country; I began than (starting here) to analyze the development of revisionism in the CCP with the concrete example of Deng Xiaoping. Because every-one can then better judge if my analyze is correct or not, because everyone can find al information and historical facts about the CCP and Deng Xiaoping.
My meaning is that People or organisations, who now defend socialism in China (against the political and ideological attacks out of the imperialist world) but not making an analysis from and 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.

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. You can see the official line of the CPC as the result of the struggle between two lines (the revolutionary line and the bourgeois/revisionist line), and therefore is reflecting a temporary outcome of that struggle.
(You can click here to the chronology of my articles analysing revisionism)

But now I interrupt (temporarily) also the analysis of the texts of Deng Xiaoping. I want first work on reactions I got from some militants of the WPB, militants that I knew and that I worked with. They are convicted communists, but at the same time they differ with me about the actual character of the WPB. For them the actual political, ideological and organizational line of the WPB is still revolutionary. For them the line from the 8^th congress in 2008 conforms to the line on the 5^th congress in 1995. (You can here read an overview of the reactions of those comrades of earlier days)
I had also a little discussion about revolutionary line for a communist party with a member of Free Road Socialist Organization (USA). (You can read about my reaction on an article on his weblog and his answers on my reactions here on his own weblog)

To be able to discuss with those comrades about if there is or not a real problem of opportunism (and I think there is, at least by those comrades still member of and active in the WPB, and I think that those comrades are not aware of that opportunism themselves) and to be able to discuss if in that opportunism (when it is not beaten)lies the danger of emerging revisionism (and the WPB of Belgium and the SP of the Netherlands are for me « negative teachers »of that), I will now first analyze the congress documents of the 5^th congress of the WPB (in 1995).

I am now translating in English (in which I am not expert) the book « Party of the Revolution » (you can read here the regularly updated file, as my translation progress, of that book here) which is an elaboration of the texts proposed, amended and then voted on the 5^th Congress of the WPB in 1995 (Workers Party of Labor, Partij Van De Arbeid van België (in Dutch) or Parti du Travail de Belgium (in French). It was a congress in which I participate as a delegate. This book proves -as I see it now, but I didn’t saw or noticed it then - that a revisionist line developed NEXT TO a revolutionary line in the WPB from that moment (in 1995). They were not in struggle because the revolutionary line itself was not free of opportunism. The knowledge of using scientific socialism as method of analyze was weak. There existed by a lot of members (by me also at that moment!) a dogmatic conception of Marxism (or scientific socialism) and so without weapons to discover the core of revisionism in the WPB. The revisionists were cadres that were respected in the party because they were authorities in the domain of Marxist analyze and because they were a part of the group that started AMADA, the communist organization out of which the WPB was founded. They used consciously this kind of « Marxism » to give their revisionist line credibility in the WPB. Ludo Martens, in fact FORMALLY president of the WPB until February 2008, where on the 8^th Congress Peter Mertens (being part of the revisionist fraction) was elected, was after the 5^th Congress, no longer leading the WPB. Although he wrote a lot about the danger of revisionism and even a sort of self critic about earlier dogmatism («Maoism») that the WPB developed, his writings had no more the authority of « official party document that each member had to study, to discuss in his base group and to assimilate ».
I think that the documents of the 5^th congress of the WPB contain lessons and warnings for other communist organizations how that a revisionist line can emerge, can develop and can become the leading line, transforming a revolutionary party into a reformist party. It’s analyze you can start reading here.
I will afterwards continue all analysis that I interrupted.

---

^[1] "About certain aspects of the struggle against revisionism", Ludo Martens in Marxistische Studies no 29, march 1996, (see www.marx.be), a discussion report on the International Seminar in Janashakti, India organised by the PCI(ML)

^[2] That text that is been put on the website of the Workers Party of Belgium, http://www.wpb.be/, on thursday, 17 November 2005, 12h40, "Contribution to the International Symposium held in Wuhan, People’s Republic of China, 13 - 15 October - Friedrich Engels and scientific socialism in contemporary China". (you can read this text here)

Reaction by militants of WPB on my articles

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 5^th Congress of the WPB in 1995, I will use and discuss these reactions,

« Ron » emailed (in 2008 in reaction of my critics on the 8^th 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 8^th 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 8^th 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.

Chronology articles analysing revisionism

You can follow the chronology of my articles analysing revisionism, which I wrote until now, here in this article.

Revisionism: the bourgeoisie inside the communist movement. (1)

"After socialism is been destroyed in the Soviet Union and the explosion of the country of Lenin, all communists has to understand that revisionism is the most dangerous ideological enemy of Marxism-Leninism. It’s beyond any doubt that revisionism represents the bourgeoisie inside the communist movement[1]”

One has to be careful by concluding that the line of one or another communist party in the world is revisionist or even concluding that the line of one or another communist party is contaminated with a lot of opportunist conceptions. However, it is my opinion that I can prove that there is a development of revisionism in the international communist movement. That development of revisionism is based on and is using certain existing opportunist conceptions (in different communist parties). In some parties the revisionist line has become the main line in that party. At this moment this is the case of the once revolutionary Workers Party of Belgium.
Read more >>>

Revisionism: the bourgeoisie inside the communist movement. (2)
In the first article (you can read it here) I tried to prove how actual revisionism uses existing forms of opportunism as: eclecticism, dogmatism, idealism (ideas are seen as facts) and metaphysics (history repeats itself in the form of analogies). I will go on with an example of revisionism “Contribution to the International Symposium held in Wuhan, People’s Republic of China, 13 - 15 October - Friedrich Engels and scientific socialism in contemporary China", by Peter Franssen, a leading cadre of the Workers Party of Belgium. (You can read this text here)
In an eclecticistic way and with the conception as if there are analogies in history, as if history repeats itself or as if it is a cycle-movement instead of an spirally movement, Peter Franssen "creates” his own reality:
Read more >>>

Revisionism: the bourgeoisie inside the communist movement. (3)
When "Peter Franssen, journalist with the Belgian weekly Solidaire and researcher at the Institute for Marxist Studies, wrote a contribution, 'Friedrich Engels and scientific socialism in contemporary China (Peter Franssen is also member of the leading organs of the Workers Party of Belgium) at "an international symposium was held in the Chinese city of Wuhan, organised by the University of Wuhan, the Central Compilation and Translation Bureau of the CC of the Communist Party of China and the Academy of Social Sciences of China", he has to make the following -although formal - statement:

"The mode of production and the structure of the economy have in the last 25 years taken big steps towards the level where social ownership of all important means of production will once again become necessary."
Read more >>>

Revisionism: the bourgeoisie inside the communist movement. (4)
Peter Franssen "creates" a main contradiction between a - nowhere proved by him, but beyond no doubt - "correct line of the CCP based on correct applying scientific socialism" and "a line of utopian socialism". Martin Hart-Landsberg, Paul Burkett and Barbara Foley are « utopians »(utopian-socialists as Fourier and Owen) when they want to build socialism in the circumstances of China " when capitalist production was as yet so little developed" So " the appropriation by society of all the means of production could become possible, could become a historical necessity, only when the actual conditions for its realisation were there". So "not by the mere willingness to abolish these classes, but by virtue of certain new economic conditions". So for Peter Franssen (and also for Deng Xiaoping as I will prove later) class struggle and mobilisation of the workers and raising their consciousness to “the appropriation by society of all the means of production" is "changing property relations at will."
Read more >>>

Revisionism: the bourgeoisie inside the communist movement. (5)
Let’s start with the first quoted text Lenin, Fourth Anniversary of the October Revolution, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, p.58 (you can read this whole text here) out of which Peter Franssen (I began with a first article - you can read here - an analysis of his text -you can read here) quotes as follows:

« In 1921 Lenin made a self-criticism concerning the period of the three previous years. He wrote: “We expected… to be able to organise the state production and the state distribution of products on communist lines in a small-peasant country directly as ordered by the proletarian state. Experience has proved that we were wrong. ”[2]
I will prove that only by the choice of (the) quote(s) you can make Lenin say contra dictionary things.
Read more >>>

Revisionism: the bourgeoisie inside the communist movement. (6)
Peter Franssen is further quoting Lenin:

"Hence the New Economic Policy with among others this directive of Lenin: “We shall lease the enterprises that are not absolutely essential for us to lessees, including private capitalists and foreign concessionaires.”[3]Lenin added that this period could last a long time: “But it will take a whole historical epoch to get the entire population into the work of the co-operatives through NEP. At best we can achieve this in one or two decades. ”[4]
And naturally, just as nowadays, the critics howled: “The Bolsheviks have reverted to capitalism!” [5]Lenin scolded them: “They are not assisting but hindering economic development; … they are not assisting but hindering the proletarian revolution; … they are pursuing not proletarian, but petty-bourgeois aims.”

Peter Franssen doesn’t say it clearly, he only insinuates the following:
In GENERAL, or ALWAYS, will in a given country, where there is a general consensus on the fact that « capitalism » is not very developed, neither the production-forces (he doesn’t speak of the working class as such, they are only a part of the « production forces ») and where the communist party, present in that country judges, even AFTER the (socialist?, national democratic?) revolution, that the production forces are not «ripe » enough to « replace » capitalist production-relations by « socialist » production relations, there has to be FIRST a development of capitalism (so capitalist-production relations with PRIVATE ownership of means of production and the workforce of the worker as a commodity.

Read more >>>

Revisionism: the bourgeoisie inside the communist movement. (7)
Peter Franssen quoting Lenin:

"Hence the New Economic Policy with among others this directive of Lenin: “We shall lease the enterprises that are not absolutely essential for us to lessees, including private capitalists and foreign concessionaires.”[6]Lenin added that this period could last a long time: “But it will take a whole historical epoch to get the entire population into the work of the co-operatives through NEP. At best we can achieve this in one or two decades. ”[7]

Peter Franssen « uses » here the quote of Lenin as a conclusion of his idealist historical conceptions. He claims that in general and in all historical situation, whatever the level of development of capitalism in the world[8], in a « country where because of the underdevelopment of capitalism in that country, the production forces are not enough developed » to lead a socialist state with a socialist plan economy, there has to be (as Engels and Marx seams to confirm) there has FIRST to be a relatively free development of capitalism with of course « capitalist production relations ».

Read more >>>

About revisionism (1)
When you look close to the conceptions, the way of analyzing, the conclusions that are been made, it becomes very clear that the revisionism that developed in the CCP (or that could “freely” develop after the dead of Mao Zedong in 1976), is identical to the revisionism that developed in the CPUSSR under Chrouststjof, Bresnjev and Gorbatsjov.
You can for example apply the critic (of course in an adapted way, not in an ANALOGUE way) that the CCP wrote in 1964 on the rising revisionism in the CP-USSR “The pseudo-communism of Chroustsjov an the historic lessons for the world”, on the revisionism that has seen the light after the dead of Mao in the CCP and that is made concrete in her economic policy after 1978. And “Perestroika” and “Glasnost” of Gorbatsjov is similar (even in the meaning of the words!) to the “Reform” and “Opening” of Deng Xiaoping.
Read more >>>

About revisionism (2)
In February 2004 Boudewijn Deckers (leading cadre of the WPB) wrote an article in Solidair, the weekly newspaper of the WPB about the development of socialism in China. (You can read it here in French) It was a résumé of his article in Marxist Studies. (You can read the first article here about this topic)
I react, not with an INTERN note as a member, but with an e-mail as an attentive reader of Solidair. I sent this mail to the chief-editor of Solidair (David Pestieau) and to the editorial staff. My intention was to have a discussion IN the columns of Solidair. This would be good and very possible, I thought. My intention was NOT to have a personal polemic OUTSIDE every control of the other readers and the editorial staff….. Boudewijn Deckers, as you will see, thought otherwise….

Read more >>>

About revisionism (3)
I argued that after 1978, or better after the dead of Mao Zedong in 1976, the development of revisionism had a breakthrough in the CCP. (Read more about my arguing starting here)
As revisionism is the bourgeois line INSIDE the communist party, the objective goal of the revisionists is to PROTECT further existence of capitalism and the capitalist class, reject the possibility of socialist revolution and AFTER an eventually revolution to ABOLISH the dictatorship of the proletariat and
STOP all class struggle that is focused on the further development of socialism to communism.
Of course, I have to prove my statements. I will to this later.
But for the good understanding of my analysis, I will give now an example of how revisionism works and how revisionists ABUSE Marxism or the scientific socialism and spread IDEALISM and METAPHISICS under Marxist phraseology.

Read more >>>

About revisionism (4)
In the previous article (you can read here) I let explain by an ideologist of the CCP how the salary-policy-part of the « reform and opening »-policy is ”approved” by Marx in « Critique of the Gotha-program » and by Lenin in « State and Revolution ».
In fact it was a proof of a revisionist type of« Marxism »: cutting a suiting quote or to make a personal interpretation of what they pretend that Marx or Lenin said.
But when we take bigger quotes of Marx and Lenin, we see that Marx and Lenin said totally other things.
I showed this in the previous article with a bigger quote of Marx and with a first quote of Lenin out of his « State and Revolution ».

Read more >>>

About revisionism (5)
I suggested that for to prove the existence of the revisionism in the international communist movement, I would use the concrete example of revisionist development in a communist party I know very well: the Workers Party of Belgium. (Read the beginning of this series of articles here)
And IN the WPB, I would give a concrete example of a revisionist: cadre with perhaps revolutionary conceptions in the past, but who can now be seen as a to bourgeois degenerated element: Boudewijn Deckers (you can read here more about Boudewijn and his conceptions)
The struggle against revisionism INSIDE the communist movement is in fact a form of class struggle. It is the essence of what is called « the struggle between two lines »: the proletarian revolutionary line against the bourgeois reactionary line (of protecting as much as possible the further existence of capitalism)
Before I go further with my analysis of the development of revisionism in the perhaps rather unknown (and most of all of his INTERN contradictions) little communist party of a little country; I will analyze the development of revisionism in the CCP with the concrete example of Deng Xiaoping.
So every-one can better judge if my analysis is correct or not, because everyone can find al information and historical facts about the CCP and Deng Xiaoping …
Read more >>>

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.
Read more >>>

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.

Read more >>>

[1] "About certain aspects of the struggle against revisionism", Ludo Martens in Marxistische Studies no 29, march 1996, (see www.marx.be), a discussion report on the International Seminar in Janashakti, India organised by the PCI(ML)
[2] Lenin, Fourth Anniversary of the October Revolution, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, p.58
[3] Lenin, New Times and Old Mistakes in a New Guise, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, p.28
[4] Lenin, On Co-operation, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, p.470.
[5] Lenin, New Times and Old Mistakes, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, pp.21 and 24
[6] Lenin, New Times and Old Mistakes in a New Guise, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, p.28
[7] Lenin, On Co-operation, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 33, p.470.
[8] The « variation » is, that « the specific situation of the Chinese revolution » needs this, as leaders of the CCP after 1978 are saying and writing.