After having analysed already several parts of « Party of the Revolution » being texts that were proposed by cadres, amended and voted by the delegates (included myself)on the 5th congress of the WPB in 1995. (you can read here a regularly updated translation of that book), I will now make a first analyse of some conceptions in a specific text in « Party of the Revolution » namely: Chapter III, part 3.
(I began my analyse of that book here. The last article I wrote just before that you are reading now, you can read here, about the place of this analyse in all the articles I wrote about revisionism you can read here)
There was at least one cadre IN the WPB (Workers Party of Belgium, wpb.be, pvda.be or ptb.be), who had NEVER laid down his BOURGEOIS conceptions. Or the leadership of the WPB had decided that he had to make a proposal-text for the 5th congress (in 1995), or he WANTED himself to make a proposal-text for the congress trying to IMPOSE his bourgeois conceptions once and for good to the REVOLUTIONARY, MARXIST and COMMUNIST party that was the WPB until then (under the EFFECTIVE leadership of Ludo Martens until 1995).
That cadre made the biggest part (with perhaps cooperation of other cadres - that were perhaps not consciously BOURGEOIS, but who had at least OPPORTUNIST conceptions) of the text that forms now: chapter III, part 3 of the book « Party of the Revolution ».
I will now just analyse some points out of this chapter, just to put them in CONTRADICTION with other texts (now forming other chapters of that same book) proposed, amended and voted on THAT SAME 5th CONGRESS! I analysed some of those other texts already, here and here.
To INTRODUCE his bourgeois conceptions and ideas INTO the party, that cadre CREATED a « Marxist-sounding » analyse CHOOSING a « main problem »(as much as A-political as possible, and as A-political formulated as possible):
« Bureacratism installs itself step by step under the cadres; it is fading the fundamental conceptions about mass line. »
And with a LIE « Mao formulate the mass line with the following words: » he CHOOSES a SELECTED quote of Mao Zedong (tearing it out of the context of the original text and out of the historical context in which this text was written and out of the context of the concrete problems for which Mao had written this text - I will explain this later):
« In all the practical work of our Party all correct leadership is necessarily "from the masses, to the masses". This means: take the ideas of the masses (scattered and unsystematic ideas) and concentrate them (through study turn them into concentrated and systematic ideas), then go to the masses and propagate and explain these ideas until the masses embrace them as their own, hold fast to them and translate them into action, and test the correctness of these ideas in such action. Then once again concentrate ideas from the masses and once again go to the masses so that the ideas are persevered in and carried through. And so on, over and over again in an endless spiral, with the ideas becoming more correct, more vital and richer each time. Such is the Marxist theory of knowledge.[1] »
(My statement « a LIE » and « PICKING a CHOOSEN quote out of a context » I will treat in a separated article with this quote of Mao as a concrete example.)
Based on this quote (and other quotes, even from Stalin - but I will treat this all when I analyse the whole chapter III, part 3) this cadre can now give a « Marxist » view on his BOURGEOIS conceptions, or at least on conceptions that are in CONTRADICTION with other, more real revolutionary, conceptions among cadres and members at that moment.
His conception about a revolutionary, communist party:
« To win the faith (the confidence) of the masses, to organise the masses around the party: that are the essential tasks for the preparation of the socialist revolution. We can make the revolution not alone with the party and the « pure politics ».The party need transmission belts, she had to do efforts to influence the mass of workers that have not yet the same high consciousness or level of organisation as the vanguard. We have to learn to lead forms of organisations that are not « pure ».
The communist militants have to be everywhere where the masses are struggling and undertake political action.
We have to mobilise the masses, stimulate their sense of initiative and creativity round those points that are interesting for the party. We have to concentrate the right ideas, voice their concrete interests, but also on a appropriate way and easy to understanding way, bring our essential revolutionary ideas in their minds. (…)
Implementing the mass line means putting dialectical materialism into practice. »
The socialist revolution is here a vague and not very concrete happening, lying in a far (utopian) future. Meanwhile and in a long, long, « preparation of the socialist revolution »: « We have to mobilise the masses, stimulate their sense of initiative and creativity round those points that are interesting for the party. We have to concentrate the right ideas, voice their concrete interests, but also on a appropriate way and easy to understanding way, bring our essential revolutionary ideas in their minds. »
Here is a reformist speaking who want to win as much as possible people for the program of reforms of capitalism ……. To VOTE on the party in elections and so get party-cadres ELECTED in the parliament (…regional or national parliament - European parliament is impossible while having only a NATIONAL program of reforms as we will see later - or city-council).
His conceptions of Scientific socialism or dialectical and historical materialism or….. Marxism:
« The essentials of materialism is to take notice in all objectivity knowledge of all facts, all experiences, proposals and ideas of the (mass-) base.
The essentials of dialectics is with the aid of Marxism Leninism, analyse al those givens and divide the positive aspects from the negative aspects. »
In fact he is here pleading for …… empirism.
His conceptions about program, strategy and tactics and the primary tasks and way of life of a communist:
« To work out a correct political line and tactic, it is necessary to do inquiries/investigations about the impact of the work of the party en about the conceptions of the masses.(…)
To make a balance means: concentrate the right ideas, centralise the best experiences of the masses.(…)
To be able to make the revolution, the masses has to be schooled in the party line.
How can communists educate the masses?(…)
The teacher has to start from the points that his pupils understand, to bring them to new knowledge. The party has not to start with « the right line » and than to spread them over the masses, without asking herself the question if they can follow.
It happen often that we announce « the right point of view », and that the masses to whom we direct ourselves, uncouple.
Each time we direct ourselves to the masses (school pupils, third world activists, students, unionists) we have first to take notice of their level and their questions, and than to make them some political steps forward.
We have to do efforts to formulate the right slogans, but we have to confront our proposals with the point of view of the vanguard. Formulations that are incomprehensive for the vanguard, will not be understood by the masses.(…)
«Take the bucket where he stands », putting ourselves on the level of the masses, means that we can not limit ourselves in our discussions to what is strictly necessary to make accept our political line. We have to learn to « adapt » ourselves to the masses, participating at their activities and introduce elements of the political line to them on moments when they can understand them and defend them.
When we talk not enough with the people, when we participate not in their struggles, even on secondary points, than we can never win them for the most important goals.
To unite the unionists on certain class positions, we have to know first very well their characteristics, their political and ideological points of view and their strong and weak points.We have to know the most left ideas that are living among them and base ourselves on those.
When we have only notice for a « correct » and « Marxist Leninist » point of view, without consideration with the own political characteristics of those circles and with tactical questions, we will never obtain a strong foundation in the union. The honest unionists will have the impression that we listen not to them, that we put ourselves allways on the foreground, that we exagerate, etc..(…)
With the actual level of the masses, it is impossible for them to recognise us as « their » party, when we take not their concrete and daily needs seriously. We have to be the best defenders of those interests, but we have also to succeed to connect those interests with the big lines of our national and international program.
The party has to profile herself and make understandable her own revolutionary character to the broad masses throughout campaigns of defending their interests, through the struggle around social economic themes where the people are concerned about. The party has to extend her influence by agitation, to do campaign and eventually to obtain little but concrete results and victories.
By agitation and action the party have to make her been recognised as the only party that really is defending the interests and values where to the masses are the most attached: a worthy an human job, free medical care, democratic social (union) elections, legal protection of the union delegates (stewards?), an alternative to make the rich pay the crisis, etc…
Not concerning « the salt and the oil », as Mao said, is leftism an misappraisal for the masses. Someone that is really concerned with the real problems that are concerning the masses may not be condemned to be an economist or a humanist. It depends how to handle those problems. Is he using them to spread reformist or humanitarian ideology or to educate the masses in a revolutionary spirit and line.(…) »
Here is someone speaking who is developing a line to win « the masses for the party » from the outer side of the mass of workers involved into class struggle. This is a party cadre, an intellectual, who has never decided definitively to become part of the working class (as many other party members and cadres did) and so become a worker accepted by his co-workers to be someone with more vanguard conceptions, and to be accepted to play a leading role in their class struggle situations and so trying to raise level of consciousness by a much of his co-workers as possible (step by step, basing on the experiences they get out of their own participation to the class struggle) to the task: to organise themselves in a way adapted to the revolution they once will lead.
This cadre is speaking in terms to make propaganda for a program of reforms of capitalism. That program is worked out on points that could interest people (therefore the « investigations » to detect what is « the salt and the oil » for the masses.
His concrete proposals to ADAPT the party ORGANISATION to his revisionist POLITICAL line:
« We are a political party directed on leading the masses and organising therefore the vanguard(…..)
The communists have to know the most urgent needs and problems of the masses, take them firmly to organise the masses and to raise mass organisations.(…)
Apply the mass line means also to mobilise the progressive powers to participate in projects of the party and mobilise powers of the party to support initiatives that are organised by progressive powers(….)
To give correct leadership, one has to have a clear idea about the reality on the level of the basic cells (the basic groups) and the middle cadre has to be so conceived that the national leaderships is connected with the (party-) base(…).
On ground level, the party has to have a mass character. With stereotype methods of organisation, we will never be able to use all those numerous forces that hang round the party….
There has to be investigations to suitable ideas, projects and methods to make a good use of the will to action of the masses and the will to organise themselves for action.. We have to made simplified cells/base groups adapted to the level of the workers. We have enough material to allow to have a permanent, continuous sustained and rich work to the base cells/base groups. With all that the party produces today, the simplified base cells/base groups can develop a broad and efficient activity. »
While using words as « vanguard » and « the leading role » he is pleading for a MASS-party to which as much as people are organised who are willing defend one or two points of the party program of reforms in enthusiast way ….. So winning possible votes in elections later on.
IN FACT he is defending a party-conception like that of the menchevics to which Lenin (and with him the bolchevics) OPPOSED.
Two opposed lines accepted on one congress
The conceptions about party and its vanguard role, class struggle, mobilising the masses, the function of propaganda and agitation etc. in the text ( in chapter III, part 3 of « Party of the Revolution ») proposed by a certain cadre and accepted on the 5th congress of the WPB in 1995 « proved » with quotes of Mao Zedong, are in CONTRADICTION with the conceptions in other parts in other documents proposed by other cadres an accepted ON THE SAME congress (and now ALSO in « Party of the Revolution ». Read for yourself some of those OTHER parts with totally OTHER conceptions:
« 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. (…)
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 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.[2]”
“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[3]”
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.(…).
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”
“Actually, reforms are won as a result of the revolutionary class struggle, as a result of its independence, mass force and steadfastness.”
“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.[4]” (…)
Lenin criticised the Russian opportunists in 1905 with the following words: « …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 mass 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. [5]» (…)
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. »
The conceptions in these parts coming out other chapters than chapter III, part 3, are mostly « proved » with quotes of Lenin. To my opinion this is a opportunist way of doing: « proving statements with chosen quotes » )
So the « Maoist » cadre that wrote the text chapter III, part 3, does he want now« revising » « Marxism-Leninism »?
Or is he trying to prove with quotes of Mao, that Lenin is wrongly « quoted »(in text proposed to the congress by other party cadres) to prove in the eyes of that cadre « dogmatic or leftist » conceptions in those texts or by those cadres?
In fact he is using the concept of « the mass line » (proved by chosen quotes of Mao) to win the party for in fact MENCHEVIC conceptions. His concept of « the mass line » is in CONTRADICTION with the BOLCHEVIC conceptions. But a close study of whole texts of Mao Zedong will show you that Mao Zedong always supported the BOLCHEVIC conceptions (formulated by Lenin) and opposed all MENCHEVIC conceptions as they emerged sometimes in the CCP. Because I am sure that that cadre knew all this (I got perhaps my first formation in Marxism from him..!) I say that that cadre is revisionist.
To my opinion it is a clear example that concessions to opportunism by revolutionaries creates the danger of the emerging of revisionism in their communist organisations.
In a manipulative way this cadre, having already for a long time revisionist conceptions, succeeded to win the majority of the delegates on the 5th congress of the WPB in 1995 (and I was one of them…) for a revisionist line with pseudo-Marxist arguments about « the mass-line ». I will argue this last statement of me in the next article.
[1] Citaten van Voorzittter Mao Tsetoeng, (het rode boekje), Uitgeverij Vereniging België China, 1971, p.136-137. But IN FACT coming out of: "Some Questions Concerning Methods of Leadership" (June 1, 1943), Selected Works, Vol. III, p. 119.
[2] 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”.
[3] ibidem, p.66-67
[4] ibidem, p. 67-68.
[5] 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”.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten