(to "fighting opportunism to beat revisionism 1")
In the following text (out of « the Party of the Revolution », - you can read a updated translation here - the documents of the 5th Congress of the WPB in 1995),there is a contradiction between the feeling of reassurance of the political unity of the party and the concern of the lack of political and ideological level of the cadres (why only the cadres, what about the whole of the militants of the party?).
First the parts with the (IDEALIST) feeling of reassurance of « the political unity » of the WPB:
« In the WPB there is a big consensus about decisive political questions that lead by a lot of organisations to break up. These consensus is the result of large debates ; the results are fixed in final documents. Revolutionary moral; Party and Front; party conception; the crisis in the revolutionary movement in Western Europe are from 1983. The last document knows a sequel in the struggle against the « six dissidents » in 1990. This resulted in the book « From Tien An Men to Timisoara ».
The analyse of the degeneration of the Soviet Union is written in « USSR, the velvet contra revolution ». The defence of the great revolutionary period in the Soviet Union forms the subject of « Another view on Stalin ». The analyse of capitalism and the syndicalism strategy were developed in « the General Society » and « Time is on our side ». The principles of the national democratic revolution in the Third World are in the book « Ten years revolution in Congo ».The analysis of the actual national and international situation one can find in the speeches of the First of May of 1989-1995. The whole party and the group of cadres in particular, stayed one, and the Marxist Leninist points of view were strengthened in the fierce anti communist campaign of 1989-1992. »
And:
«The WPB has come strengthened out of the anticommunist rollercoaster of 1989-1991. How she has resisted her? How she has strengthened her revolutionary unity and was possible to increase the number of militants.? In the book « Of Tien An Men to Timisoara »one can find the answers on these questions. (….)
Thanks of these achievements and successes we can today the accent on certain negative aspects in our work to stimulate the vigilance of all our cadres and members. The big unity and firmness of our party permit us to concentrate more energy on the research of certain weaknesses and shortages. We mobilise our forces to foresee and prevent the crises that could be happen in the future.
The leadership has to judge the mistakes and weaknesses always with the most serious strictness; and that she is doing. Normally these political debates has to be restricted to the leading organs only. The conclusions out of this struggle would than be used for the education and the unifying of the whole party.
But the leadership has judged in the actual circumstances it opportune to take all the cadres and members into the debate, and therefore calling together a Congress. (…) »
In an not very sharp way the text says « These consensus is the result of large debates ; the results are fixed in final documents… ». It is a very misty formulation, because mostly of these « documents » are in fact voted Congress-documents, so documents that has to be assimilated by every member and that only can be changed by another Congress:
Second congress in 1983: Revolutionary moral; Party and Front; party conception; the crisis in the revolutionary movement in Western Europe are from 1983.
Third congress round 1987-1988:« Time is on our side »
Fourth Congress in 1992:« USSR, the velvet contra revolution »
It is remarkable that nothing is said about the « consensus » round the document of the First Congress in 1979: the fundamental elaborated PROGRAM and STATUTES of the WPB.
Perhaps this program has to be revised? Then what is the revised program of the WPB? Nothing is mentioned about the contents of the PROGRAM of the WPB. And the Statutes were in 1979 conform with the Leninist party conceptions. Are the principles of membership not changed? But than the statutes have to bee discussed. And when there are mistakes in the program of 1979 - that has to be corrected by a new congress!- was it then because there was applied OPPORTUNIST analysis instead of MARXIST analysis? What could be said in 1995 on the 5th congress, for the sake of renewing « consensus » and unity in the party? In a later analyse I will come back on the document of the first congress of the WPB in 1979 which was (an is still?) the fundamental concrete revolutionary program of the WPB, still not refuted and changed by any congress….
In fact one could say that IF the program has to be revised, and IF there is yet no Congress that can decide on this, a temporary « update » has been made by Ludo Martens as president of the WPB taking his responsibility, in: « The defence of the great revolutionary period in the Soviet Union forms the subject of ’ Another view on Stalin ‘. … The principles of the national democratic revolution in the Third World are in the book ’ Ten years revolution in Congo ‘.The analysis of the actual national and international situation one can find in the speeches of the First of May of 1989-1995. »
This « consensus » is in fact idealism, so opportunism, as the « consensus » declared on the 5th congress in 1995 about for example « Party and Front »(you can read here a part of this document) is CONTRADICTING the « consensus » on THAT SAME congress, about for example « USSR- the velvet contra revolution ».(you can read here a part of this document). So while there is no further précising, you can say that in 1995 there were a lot or militants who still agreed with the political line (and agreed with the Marxist character of the analyse where this was based on) of the second congress, and a lot of militants agreed with the political line of the fourth congress (that was correcting the line AND the analysis -on certain specific points - of the second congress) But where was done the CORRECT applying of Marxism? And where was applied opportunism? And what was the concrete content of that opportunism? And where was the accepting by the majority of the delegates of the 5th congress of all this? When I would be forced on that 5th congress to study and to vote consciously about all this, perhaps I would have noticed (and very much comrades with me) that I was applying a dogmatic form of Marxism.
It is clear, at least for me NOW, that there was some dogmatism in the analysis of the international situation in 1983, that was corrected by the fourth congress. This had to be formulated in the congress documents of the 5th congress, to unify the party, not on a misty « consensus », but on a concrete analysis of the actual world (out of which would be developed the concrete tasks for the communists organised in the communist party)
This opportunism,(dogmatic analysing, misty very general statements) has been used to introduce IN the documents of the 5th congress (and has been accepted by a majority, included me!) some real revisionist analyse. A good study of former congress documents (for example « Party and Front »form the second congress in 1983 ) could have detected revisionist pseudo-Marxist analyse that led to decisive conclusions about party working, building the party organisation, conditions for new membership, tasks for the party militants in their all day political work, that are in contradiction with conclusions in « Party and Front ». I will come back on this with concrete proofs.
The feeling of reassurance speaking out of the texts above, contradicts with the feeling of concern and worry that speaks out of other parts out of the SAME TEXT (in the SAME chapter):
« As economic and political system capitalism can offer to mankind no humane future…
(…) Only the uprising of the people and the socialist revolution can make an end to this barbaric system. In that revolution the communist party as a subjective factor, with her political line and her organisational power, plays the most important role. (…)
Only Marxism Leninism offers a solution with socialism and communism. (…)
To put the cadres of the communist party in the possibility to pick up the tasks of each new historic period seriously, they have to work on a continuous transformation of their world conception.
Since 1945 Belgium knows a period where bourgeois democracy is relative stabile. The danger exist that the attitude and ideas stay marked by this period.
The elimination of what was left of socialism in the USSR was the start of a reactionary period in the whole world. Wars of aggression and inter imperialist wars break out. More fascist tendencies are a general phenomena in the actual imperialist world.
Our ideas, our policy and our conceptions about organisation have to adapt to this new reality. The attitude of the cadres and their working style has to change radically. Instead of having big ambitions and to act conform with it, are some of them sticking in the « routine » of the quiet years.
They are working as if they « have all the time of the world ». Formal they agree with the analysis of becoming sharper of the contradictions on national and international level.
But it result not in bigger ambitions to bring the party forward, by working on strategic conclusions and to begin to work in a firm manner on new domains.
If the party succeeds to bring her tasks to a good ending, depends for a big part of the Marxist Leninist quality of the leadership, of the revolutionary spirit of the leading cadres, their sense of responsibility, their ties with the party base and the masses, their revolutionary discipline, their sense of making conclusions, their sense or initiative and their revolutionary creativity.
The main mission of the 5th congress of the Workers Party of Belgium, was to ameliorate the working of the leadership of the party.(…)
It would be dangerous to underestimate the problems, with the excuse that we resist firmly against the bourgeois offensive. The fundamental analyses, of which the essential statements are not contested, are made by a very little number of cadres. The unity round the line, is sometimes formal and the mentioned documents are not always good assimilated. At the same moment one can notice in certain sectors a slow, a almost unnoticeable, ideological and political deterioration.
In 1989-1990 we have been through a renewed version of the liquidation-movement of the beginning of 1980. But now it is developing with the background of a more fierce anticommunist offensive on world level, a rollercoaster of revisionist statements inside the international communist movement and a alarming development of right tendencies in our party.
Some cadres of the Central Committee of 1987-1990 have capitulated and have left the leadership. In the worst case we had to do with a comrade who « discovered » in 1989 that he agreed with the most right statements of the revisionists and the social democrats against Stalin, against the Khmers Rouges, against the oppression of the contra- revolutionary revolt in Beijing, against the proletarian dictatorship - in favour of Krutchov, in favour of the Communist Party of Belgium, in favour of the peaceful transition to socialism… after fifteen years of militancy we had to notice that his transformation of world conception was absolute zero. Three cadres, who would normally enter the Central Committee in 1991, were refused because they respected not the financial norms for higher cadres.
Some sectors of the party were led in a routine way, without strong revolutionary spirit. The cadres and members are not consequently educated in Marxism Leninism, get no deep going critics on their work, nor help to overcome their weaknesses. All that hold risks for the future. When it begin to burn in those sectors, cadres from elsewhere have to come to help extinguish. .
The contra revolution in Eastern Europe, the shifts in China, prove that everybody have to do big efforts, when they want to know and to overcome the different revisionist and sectarian-dogmatic streaming and to develop Marxism Leninism. The ideological evolution proves this also.
The party states form the beginning that she bases al her activities on the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao Zedong. But in the reality very few cadres are doing the effort to know the totality of all those works and to apply them in a lively manner in the all day party work.
A lot of ideological and political principles were assimilated in the years 1968-1979: basing oneself on the practice and the work among the masses, to chose the leading cadres, to form them and to judge them; the mass line, democratic centralism, apply the Leninist discipline; following united front policy, etc… These principles were never doubted, but get slowly out of practice.
During the debates in 1989-1990 we could notice that behind the façade of ideological unity developed almost unnoticeable, numerous anti-Leninist, petty bourgeois conceptions.
We can not say that the Marxist Leninist nature and orientation of our party is secured firmly. (…..)
We should not underestimate the tendencies to liberalism, laziness and liquidationism under the cadres as is describe in the book « Of Tien An Men to Timisoara »
In the party exists a potential streaming of liquidationism that has nested itself in the party unnoticed and sneaky. She can become active again, when there will be serious problems.
9. Four fights we have to fight
9.1. Increasing the sense of responsibility of the leading cadres (…)
9.2. Putting political problems in the centre and struggle against opportunism ….)
9.3. Fight bureaucratic working, paper inflation and routine (….)
9.4. Fight individualism and strengthen control (….)
10. Rectifying and purifying(…) »
But in this revolutionary concern and worry to save the revolutionary character of the WPB and to unify the whole party on this, there was not enough awareness for some forms of opportunist way of applying Marxism. It is this unawareness of certain forms of opportunism that revisionism could enter the WPB.
This you can notice in other parts of « Party of the revolution ».
I will proof this in a next article.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten