In the last article of this serie(you can read it here) I analysed the introduction of the first chapter (« The organisation of a party of the bolchevic type » ) out of the book « The Party of the Revolution » (you can read here a regularly updated translation of that book). In this book all the proposed, amended and voted texts of the 5th congress of the Workers Party of Belgium in 1995, are put together, of course edited for the book and accompanied with some « introductions » and « clarifications ». Although it SEEMED to be a whole with ONE political and ideological line, this is not the case. Study of the book shows that there are contradictory statements and conceptions in it. That is because the texts are written to be proposed on that congress by cadres of whom some had more authentic revolutionary conceptions, some had revolutionary conceptions but also showed some opportunism. And at least one text, of one cadre is revisionist. At the time of the congress, and the years after the congress, those contradictions were not noticed by the delegates (at least not by me, being also delegate at that congress)
In the last article I analysed that although the title of the chapter was « The organisation of a party of the bolchevic type » the line of the introduction of that chapter was more that of the Mensheviks.
Ok, I will now proceed with the rest of that chapter.
After the introduction of the first chapter, the first chapter proceed with some facts out of the history of the WPB:
« Our party is founded in September 1970, when the decision is made to build a Marxist Leninist organisation, with the main task to place itself in the working class.
The leading group, coming out of the miners strike in the province Limburg, became the core of AMADA (Alle Macht Aan De Arbeiders (All Power To The workers), with which other comrades joined that were active in the struggle of the workers in other regions. The editorial committee of the newspaper was in fact the centre of the organisation.
In July 1971 for the first time a permanent leading bureau was installed, with the task to begin with building the party out of the top.
This decision had a very positive effect on the whole of the organisation. The working-out of the political line was stimulated, the central leadership was working on the unifying of the whole organisation around ONE single line, the central guidelines have strengthened the bounds of the party with the masses of the workers, the orderly and positive work of the cells (base groups) was stimulated by central guidelines.
Two fundamental mistakes has caused the disappearance of this first central group.
First. We were not enough conscious about the necessity to organise systematically the struggle between two lines in the leading organ. The vigilance against our own bourgeois conceptions and points of view was not enough developed.
Therefore there was a lack of study of Marxism Leninism in a spirit of class struggle to eliminate those bourgeois conceptions. The division of the bureau in a political bureau and an organisational bureau, result in the facts the absence of one unified political leadership. The organisational bureau developed a economist line. This was criticised by the political bureau, but the latter one has not organised a real struggle around this, nor made a systematic analyse to eliminate this economist line to the bottom. This worsened the situation.
Secondly. The bureau succeeded not to have a permanent and lively bound with the practice and with the masses. For to lead, they started more and more out of their theoretical knowledge of Marxism Leninism and applied idealism and apriorism. The concrete grip on the practice of the militants and on the class struggle weakened and they succeeded not to grasp the specific an the concrete and to analyse it. Idealism, the giving through of conceptions that were obtained on theoretical manner, came in the place of the fusion of Marxism Leninism with the concrete reality of the revolutionary struggle. »
The UNDERESTIMATING of the political problems and contradictions in the introduction of the first chapter[1] (political problems of which the description in the introduction-chapter of the book itself showed, that they were serious[2]) and than to conclude arbitrarily that the most important problem in the party is ORGANISATIONAL, is making a scission between POLITICAL line an ORGANISATIONAL line. That form of opportunism is in fact CRITICISED in the text here above. The historical FACTS about the history of the party are forming together that CRITIC.
Consequently it is said in that chapter how important are the political and ideological capacities of the cadres. In fact they are decisive, is concluded:
« The existence of a stabile core of good formed cadres is of decisive importance for the strengthening of the party and for the victory of the revolution.
We know out of experience that the forming of such a core is a work of long breath.
Such a core can just definitively be constructed through the participation of the most fierce class struggle and through repetitively movements of struggle against opportunist lines.
This process of long duration has to be consciously been organized, by the selection, the education, to test new cadres and to permanently watching over the health of older cadres.
Lenin has handled that central question in his first big work about the party « What is to be done? ».(…)
The experience with the first permanent bureau learned us that the problem of the continuous transformation of the conception of the world is the central problem of all leading cadres.
Bureaucratism, cutting oneself from the masses and the practice, lack of concern for study, but also intellectualism, peaceful coexistence with opportunist conceptions: all this mistakes came to the surface in the former permanent bureau .
Only an intense and ongoing struggle for transformation of the conception of the world can allow us to conquer systematically these mistakes and weaknesses. (…)
The leadership of a organisation decides the nature of it.
A real communist party is put into practice, a conscious policy to bring together in her leading organs the most revolutionary, the most conscious and the most experienced revolutionaries together. ….)
The highest cadres have to have above all attention for questions that decide about the orientation and the future of the whole of the party. First of all they have to give attention to the working out of the political statements about the essential problems that are concerning the masses, the working out of guidelines that direct the practice and the analyse of the most important weak points of the party and of the leadership.
But very often it happens that the discussions are directed to those points for which the cadres has spontaneously their attention because they occur in the actuality. That means that the conception of the building of the party out of the top is not really understood. »
And then follows another historical lesson (this time out of the history of the CPSU), that warns all party members (in 1995) for something that has now happened in the WPB itself (between 2004 and the 8th congress in 2008):
« The party can also be destroyed out of the top
Kruchnev and Bresnjev have taken the power in the bolsjevic party; they have slowly step by step oppressed all ideological and political principles of bolchevism. They have fired the revolutionary cadres under the pretext that they were « Stalinists ». They allowed the development of Bukharinist, social democratic, nationalist tendencies beside all kinds of bourgeois and petty bourgeois tendencies.
The party has become a revisionist party. The great glorious bolchevic party is dismantled out of the top.
We have to take attention to the causes of the fall or the deterioration of the leading cadres, to pull lessons out of it and to take efficient political measures.
It is of the highest importance that we take care that the struggle between two lines can taken place in the national bureau. »
So until now we can say that in some parts of the book (and so in the conception of some cadres who proposed their text to the 5th congress), there is an underestimating of the importance of the POLITICAL line. But in other parts (and so in the conceptions of other cadres) it is clearly said that: It is the political struggle between two lines and the continuous POLITICAL fight against forms of opportunism, and this from top to bottom in the party, that decides about the outcome of the organisational work.
We will see now how in the rest of the first chapter there are made some important lessons, conclusions and remarks. But in the analyse of them, and in their formulation you will see that there is some « contamination » of opportunism.
« 3. Study Marxism Leninism fight revisionism
3.1. Get a general knowledge of Marxism Leninism
The party cadres must study Marxism Leninism as a science….
The cadres must do all efforts to know in several years all fundamental works. That will help them to find their way in the most occurring problems…
(then a whole list of works from Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Enver Hodja)…
We must have special attention to the study of dialectical materialism, that lays on the base of Marxism.
Lenin has given always much attention to the study of dialectical materialism. All his works are concrete examples of applying of dialectical materialism and can be studied out of that viewpoint »
Here is an opportunist conception about « what is Marxism, about what means « being a Marxist » and « knowing and applying Marxism »: Marxism is « having a good encyclopaedically knowledge of the content of a much as possible works of Marxists who are beyond all doubt ». That encyclopaedically knowledge you have to use to analyse and to solve problems. You can read this conception in the first three sentences in the next part of the same chapter:
« 3.2. Realise the concrete unity between theory and practice.
To lead the revolution, one can not be satisfied with ready Marxist schemes and formulations. The anti capitalist struggle and anti imperialist struggle has more than ever an international character and is playing in a very complex world.
We have to apply Marxism Leninism creatively so we can in such a complex situation bring the revolutionary struggle step by step forward.
The revolutionary theory comes forth out of the practice and stands in service of the practice.
The right opportunists like to tell that « one has to start out of the practice ». In fact they want to say: « Stay on the surface, hold to what is direct reach and to the spontaneous movement ».
The Marxists have to start from the practice and the numerous problems that appears out of it. They have to base themselves on inquiries/investigations and research and formulate statements in the light of Marxism Leninism.
We do the effort to grasp the problems that come forward out of the practice of the class struggle on national and international level. How better we are capable to formulate the fundamental problems clearly and thoroughly out of the practice, how more fruitful will be our study. »
Here is also made a contradiction between theory and practice that is later « proved » by some quotes of Mao Zedong. But in the rest of the same text out of which those quotes are chosen, you can see that the contradiction between theory and practice is treated by Mao far more dialectically.
These opportunist « contaminations » make it possible that a real revisionist text (chapter III, part 3 in « Party of the Revolution) has passed the discussions and voting on the 5th congress. And as we will see later that THAT text was the weapon, the instrument for the revisionists to take over the leadership of the party, WITHOUT much reaction or protest of the majority of the members.
Further:
« 4. Engaging yourself in the practice and in the revolutionary class struggle
A revolutionary has to know the world and change him. In 1845 Marx wrote in Brussels his « statements about Feuerbach ». In this he wrote: « philosophers have just interpreted the world in different manners, but now it depends on it to change him (..) there are people needed to change the circumstances and the educator has to be educated. (…) the coinciding of changing the circumstances with the human activity and the self-change can only be conceived as revolutionary practice. »
This rather dialectical view is somehow lost in the text of 5th congress itself when it is says:
« A communist start in the practice and of the engagement in the struggle. He studies Marxism Leninism with the only goal: to ameliorate his practice and struggle. Mao said:
« The dialectical-materialist theory of knowledge places practice in the primary position,… »
« it emphasizes the dependence of theory on practice, emphasizes that theory is based on practice and in turn serves practice…. »
« If you want knowledge, you must take part in the practice of changing reality….»
« … Marxism emphasizes the importance of theory precisely and only because it can guide action…»[3] …. »
Here are that chosen quotes out of a text of Mao to « prove »the correctness of the statements in the part 3.2. (see above) by Mao himself. But this conclusions in those quotes are JUST A PART and JUST ONE SIDE of what Mao said in the whole text.
With those « opportunist contaminations » the following conclusion in the first chapter is somehow « lost ». We will see that the revisionist text (chapter III, part 3) will make a conclusion that is in OPPOSITION with the following:
« The masses make the history. Only the masses can on crucial moments in history form a material force capable to destroy old politic structures with violence. The mobilisation of the masses for the class struggle has to stay in the centre of communist activity. But the mass actions, how hard they are, are not preparing automatically the revolution. Two conditions are therefore necessary.
During the mass actions the workers have to assimilate a political line learning them that the bourgeoisie is the class enemy; that they have to overthrow her, breaking her state apparatus and expropriate her. There is the task for communists to make the struggling masses overcome their spontaneous ideas and to educate them the socialist ideology.
The mass struggle is needed to lead to organise the vanguard and the masses. Outside the organisation there is no staying political and ideological progress. Only the organisation creates the possibility to make from a certain struggle the spring board for new, more conscious and firmer struggle. »
This is « proved » with quotes of Lenin (here below), in fact an opportunist way of doing. But this time the context of those quotes are better respected, and so those quotes more correctly « prove » the statements that are made and the conceptions that are given. But CONTRADICTORY - and to my opinion revisionist - analyse, statements and conception are ALSO « proved » by quotes (of Mao Zedong) But I will prove that there the context is NOT respected.
But to my opinion, « prove » a conception with chosen quotes of Marx, Lenin or Mao is a in fact an (opportunist) IDEALIST way of « applying Marxism ».
« A communist has to acquire first of all a revolutionary class position. That means a definitive engagement at the side of the exploited workers., also a choice for revolutionary class struggle and a knowledge of the fundamental changes that occurs in the revolutionary class struggle.
In the vision of communists the struggle for reforms has to prepare the future revolution, raise the revolutionary consciousness. A communist party measures the results of a partial struggle to the answer on two decisive questions: did the struggle make progress the revolutionary organisation and does it strengthen the revolutionary consciousness?
Lenin has clearly showed how reformists ( and even « revolutionaries » of the Trotskyite sort) come near to the partial struggle as opportunists and lackeys of the bourgeoisie.(encore a propos du doema…)…
Lenin explain clearly that the fundamental purpose of the class struggle exists in preparing the masses on revolution, make them conscious of their irreconcilable antagonism with the bourgeoisie. Because they are preparing the revolution, the communist party supports only those reforms that strengthen the independence of the working class and her consciousness. The party uses the struggle for reforms to organise the workers in the party.(…)
Lenin writes:
“We must choose”—this is the argument the opportunists have always used to justify themselves, and they are using it now. Big things cannot be achieved at one stroke. We must fight for small but achievable things. How do we know whether they are achievable? They are achievable if the majority of the political parties, or of the most “influential” politicians, agree with them. The larger the number of politicians who agree with some tiny improvement, the easier it is to achieve it. We must not be utopians and strive after big things. We must be practical politicians; we must join in the demand for small things, and these small things will facilitate the fight for the big ones. We regard the small things as the surest stage in the struggle for big things.
That is how all the opportunists, all the reformists, argue; unlike the revolutionaries.[4]”
“There is a social-liberal trend which demands the repeal of the anti-socialist laws, a reduction of the working day, insurance against illness, and so on. A fairly large section of the bourgeoisie supports these demands. Do not repel it by tactless conduct, offer it a friendly hand, support it, and then you will be practical politicians, you will achieve small, but real benefits for the working class, and the only thing that will suffer from your tactics will be the empty words about “revolution”. You cannot make a revolution now, in any case. One must choose between reaction and reform[5]”
Lenin explained clearly that the fundamental goal of the class struggle is to prepare the masses for the revolution, to make them conscious about their not to conciliate antagonism with the bourgeoisie.
Because she prepares the revolution, the communist party supports only those reforms that strengthens the independence and the consciousness of the working class. The party uses the struggle for reforms to organise the proletariat in the party. It is clear that the party can never support counterrevolutionary reforms of which it is clearly the goal to break the independence and the consciousness of the working class, as it is the case of the « federalising » or « communautarising » of Belgium.
Lenin writes:
“According to the theory of socialism, i.e., of Marxism (non Marxist socialism is not worth serious discussion nowadays), the real driving force of history is the revolutionary class struggle; reforms are a subsidiary product of this struggle, subsidiary because they express unsuccessful attempts to weaken, to blunt this struggle”
“We pursue an independent policy and put forward only such reforms as are undoubtedly favourable to the interests of the revolutionary struggle, that undoubtedly enhance the independence, class-consciousness and fighting efficiency of the proletariat. Only by such tactics can reforms from above, which are always half-hearted, always hypocritical, and always conceal some bourgeois or police snare, be made innocuous.”
“Actually, reforms are won as a result of the revolutionary class struggle, as a result of its independence, mass force and steadfastness.”
“By merging our slogans with those of the reformist bourgeoisie we weak en the cause of revolution”
“By up holding our old revolutionary slogans in their entirety, we strengthen the actual struggle”
“All that is false and hypocritical in these reforms we leave to the Cadets; all that is of positive value in them we utilise ourselves.[6]” (…)
Working under the masses, lead the class struggle has always to happen with revolution an insurrection in mind. Only that perspective gives to class struggle a proletarian and revolutionary character. Without that perspective the class struggle remains inside the bourgeois system and man is only reaching to « ameliorations »….
Lenin is saying that a communist has to be capable to work for the revolution, even in the most difficult situations, when openly speaking of revolution is a crime. But even the most banal legal work has to happen always at service of coming revolutionary developments.(la crise du menchevism/ lessons of the Moscow insurrection.
The defeat makes the revolutionaries hard as steel. They submit their activities to a critical investigation to correct their mistakes and the shortages to victory. For the opportunists the defeat shows that the struggle or the insurrection was premature and they become liquidators of the party and the revolutionary program…
Lenin criticised the Russian opportunists in 1905 with the following words:
« Thus, nothing could be more short-sighted than Plekhanov’s view, seized upon by all the opportunists, that the strike was untimely and should not have been started, and that “they should not have taken to arms”. On the contrary, we should have taken to arms more resolutely, energetically and aggressively; we should have explained to the masses that it was impossible to confine things to a peaceful strike and that a fearless and relentless armed fight was necessary. [7]»
« That is why Larin fails to understand the historic progress of the mass struggle of the proletariat signalised by the strike in October 1905 and the uprising in December 1905. Whereas the retrogression of the Russian revolution (temporary, on his own admission) expressed in the necessity of preparatory activity within the limits of the law (trade unions, elections, etc.) he elevates into progress from spontaneous to planned activity, from moods to calculation, etc.
That is why, in place of the moral drawn by a revolutionary Marxist (that instead of a spontaneous political strike we must have a planned political strike, instead of a spontaneous uprising we must have a planned uprising), we find the moral drawn by a renegade-Cadet (instead of the “folly of spontaneity”—strikes and uprisings—we must have systematic submission to the Stolypin laws and a planned deal with the Black-Hundred monarchy)[8] »
« People of a philistine, petty-bourgeois type are weary of the revolution. A little, drab, beggarly but peaceful legality is preferable to the stormy alternations of revolutionary outbursts and counter-revolutionary frenzy. Inside the revolutionary parties this tendency is expressed in a desire to reform these parties. Let the philistine become the main nucleus of the party: “the party must be a mars party”. Down with illegality, down with secrecy, which hinders constitutional “progress”! The old revolutionary parties must be legalised. And this necessitates a radical reform of their programmes in two main directions: political and economic. We must drop the demand for a republic and the confiscation of the land, we must discard our clearly defined, uncompromisingly sharp and tangible exposition of the socialist goal and represent socialism as a “remote prospect”, as Mr. Peshekhonov has expressed it with such inimitable grace. [9]» (…)
4.4.Petty bourgeois deviations
In our party still exist petty bourgeois conceptions that put a brake on revolutionary practice
The developing of a revolutionary practice demands three conditions: develop class struggle and lead it, raise the political consciousness of the masses and organise the vanguard, the advanced part in the party, while bringing together the masses in broad organisations under the leadership of the party. There is always a certain equilibrium between struggle, consciousness and organisation. One of these three aspects can become the most important one in a certain situation.
Practice is the starting point and is staying in the central attention of the activity of the party. We lack often initiative, that can mobilise the masses, that lames the cadres by endless discussions about « the line ».
We can endless discuss with some petty bourgeois about « the criminality among young migrants » and even work out « a line about this ». But to what lead this? What is the use of all this? To which practice does it lead? It is better to organise activists who accept to work under young migrants, to bring them an alternative for drugs and little criminality and give them formation about the relation between drugs, capitalism and repression…(…)
The party produces an enormous pile of documents and texts. But during debates organised by the party, most members and cadres remain passive, they don’t do interventions about fundamental political points, they don’ t do anything to mobilise the masses and to put the people present to activity. It is logical that, when one is standing in front of unknown or hostile public and one stays passive, you give the initiative to the bourgeoisie. It shows that the inside work is not teaching how to convince the masses or how to organise them. But this are fundamental tasks for a communist.
Lenin said about similar situations: « the movement of the revolutionary action can deteriorate to a movement of the word. »(…).
Which attitude do we have against what the bourgeoisie calls « the riots oft the young immigrants »? Of course we accuse the filthy reactions in the media. But that is what every petty bourgeois can do. The communists throw themselves in the practice and in the struggle, at the side of the most oppressed masses. Our most important just has to be, to help them to organise themselves for to struggle, offer resistance, to let the world know about their situation and their points of view, and to get a socialist consciousness. Our most important task is not « work out the line « to give an answer to petty bourgeois, but at the other hand to work out a policy for the practice among the oppressed. The spontaneous reactions of some members and cadres are coloured by prejudges.
When there were « riots » in 1927 under the peasants of Hunan, Mao went there to do some investigation. He wrote: « From the middle social strata upwards to the Kuomintang right-wingers, there was not a single person who did not sum up the whole business in the phrase, “It’s terrible!” Under the impact of the views of the “It’s terrible!” school then flooding the city, even quite revolutionary minded people became down-hearted as they pictured the events in the countryside in their mind’s eye; and they were unable to deny the word “terrible”. Even quite progressive people said, “Though terrible, it is inevitable in a revolution.” In short, nobody could altogether deny the word “terrible”. But, as already mentioned, the fact is that the great peasant masses have risen to fulfil their historic mission and that the forces of rural democracy have risen to overthrow the forces of rural feudalism.[10]»
« Every revolutionary party and every revolutionary comrade will be put to the test, to be accepted or rejected as they decide. There are three alternatives. To march at their head and lead them? To trail behind them, gesticulating and criticizing? Or to stand in their way and oppose them? Every Chinese is free to choose, but events will force you to make the choice quickly.[11] »
In a (very summarized) conclusion of the first chapter there is made an dialectical approach of the importance of the practice, the role of the theory, which kind of practice is most important (class struggle), the link between political line and organisation conceptions:
« Practice and struggle, without political work round fundamental points of the communist program, without organisation lead only to impasse and failures. »
Where here above I think that there are formulated CORRECT statements and conclusions, although there is some « opportunist« contamination, the text of which I will make a (first and restricted) analyse of conceptions out of chapter III, part 3 in « Party of the Revolution »
I consider this as a REVISIONIST text, proposed and voted by the majority(included me!) on the 5th congress of the WP in 1995..
I will analyse the whole text of chapter III, part 3 (in « Party of the Revolution ») further when I come to that chapter, but I will now just give an example of at totally other conception of the role of the communist party, that contradict with the conceptions here above. (see next article).
[1] You can read here about it, in the article before.
[2] Read here the analyse of the introductory chapter of the book « Party of the Revolution ».
[3] Mao Zedong, « Over de practijk », uit « Filosofische essays », uitgeverij EPO, Antwerpen 1978, p 10, 14 en 1/ Out of « SELECTED WORKS OF MAO TSE-TUNG Volume I »,From Marx to Mao ML © Digital Reprints 2006 / 2007, « ON PRACTICE - On the Relation Between Knowledge and Practice, Between Knowing and Doing, July 1951 », p. 297, 300, 304..
[4] Encore a propos du ministere de la Douma, in Oeuvres Deel 11,Editions sociales Parijs,Editions du Progrès Moskou, 1966, p.65 / Out of “Once Again About the Duma Cabinet”, Published: Ekho, No. 6, June 28, 1906. Published according to the Ekho text. Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1965, Moscow, Volume 11, pages 69-73. Public Domain: Lenin Internet Archive (2004). “Marxists Internet Archive”.
[5] ibidem, p.66-67
[6] ibidem, p. 67-68.
[7] Leniin, « Les enseignements de l‘insurrections de Moscou, in Oeuvres Deel 11, Editions sociales Parijs, Editions du Progrès Moscou, 1966, p. 439./ « Lessons of the Moscow Uprising » Published: Proletary, No. 2, August 29, 1900. Published according to the Proletary text. Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1965, Moscow, Volume 11, pages 171-178. Public Domain: Lenin Internet Archive (2000). “Marxists Internet Archive”.
[8] Lenin, « La crise du mechanism », in Oeuvres Deel 11, Editions sociales Parijs, Editions du Progrès Moscou, 1966, p. 346. / V. I. Lenin, « The Crisis of Menshevism », Public Domain: Lenin Internet Archive (2000). “Marxists Internet Archive”.
[9] Lenin, « L‘esprit petit bourgeois dans les milieux révolutionaires« , in Oeuvres deel 11, Edtitions sociales Parijs, editions du Progrès, Moscou, 1966, p. 25./ « Philistinism in Revolutionary Circles », Published: Proletary, No. 6, October 29, 1906. Published according to the Proletary text. Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1965, Moscow, Volume 11, pages 246-256. Public Domain: Lenin Internet Archive (2004). “Marxists Internet Archive”.
[10] Mao Zedong, « Rapport sur l’enquete menée dans le Hunan a propos du movement paysan » , in Oeuvres choisie Deel 1,éditions en langues étrangères, Bejing, 1967, p.25-26 / « INVESTIGATION OF PEASANT MOVEMENT IN HUNAN »,SELECTED WORKS OF MAO TSE-TUNG Volume I, p. 26-27From Marx to Mao ML © Digital Reprints 2006 / 2007.
[11] Mao Zedong, « Rapport sur l’enquete menée dans le Hunan a propos du movement paysan » , in Oeuvres choisie Deel 1,éditions en langues étrangères, Bejing, 1967, p.22 / « INVESTIGATION OF PEASANT MOVEMENT IN HUNAN »,SELECTED WORKS OF MAO TSE-TUNG Volume I, p. 24, From Marx to Mao ML © Digital Reprints 2006 / 2007.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten