In the last article I analysed the lie of Peter Mertens (actual president of the WPB): « We are no longer Stalinists ». Now I will analyse the lie of Peter Mertens: « We are no longer Maoists » A lie indeed, because the whole « renewal of the WPB since 2004 » is a CONSEQUENCE of a « Maoist » opportunist line! So Peter Mertens should say: « I am STILL Maoist »!
Considering that Ludo Marten was in 1995 still effective president of the WPB, you can say that the WPB formed an auto-critic on the earlier development of « Maoist » opportunism:
« The young Marxist-Leninist movement that developed in Europe from 1963 on (…). was marked by petit-bourgeois ideologies, whose common characteristic was anti-Stalinism. The positions of Mao Zedong that we spoken about have encouraged an interpretation of "Maoism" as a new theory opposed to Stalinism, and thus Leninism. Our party has always defended the positions stated in " The Question of Stalin" of the CCP. But the study of the theory and practise of Stalin was neglected, or forgotten. The CCP stated in 1966: “Comrade Mao Zedong developed Marxism-Leninism in an outstanding, creative way, in all realms; he has brought it up to a new, superior level" (Little Red Book. Introduction of 1966). In our Party, it was generally acknowledged that “in all realms" the ideas of Mao Zedong were "superior" to those of Stalin or even Lenin. It was not deemed necessary to study in which areas Mao Zedong had brought a true enrichment to the Marxist-Leninist theory.[1] »
In fact on the 5th congress in 1995, that « Maoist » opportunism was « proving » her anti Stalinist (but IN FACTanti LENINIST) conceptions with chosen quotes of Mao Zedong. The « Maoist »opportunist line was in contradiction with the LENINIST conceptions about organising the workers for the revolution, the necessity to organise the vanguard of the workers in a communist party, and for the intellectuals, that want to become communists, to LEAVE their petty-bourgeois and bourgeois class-origin and becoming a part of the working class and try to find vanguard workers among their new colleagues or to become considered as a vanguard worker by their colleagues.
Now analysing the documents of the 5th congress in 1995 of the WPB, proves that although there is development of a true revolutionary line, the opportunist line was not defeated and the texts in which that opportunist line (you can say even a real revisionist line) is developed are accepted as congress documents.
In Fighting opportunism, to beat revisionism 6 , on this web log, I analysed further the book « Party of the Revolution » ( read here ), composed of texts that were proposed by cadres, amended and voted by the delegates (included myself)on the 5th congress of the WPB in 1995. In this article I began with an analyse of some conceptions in a specific text in « Party of the Revolution » namely: Chapter III, part 3. Those conceptions are in CONTRADICTION with other texts (now forming other chapters of that same book) proposed, amended and voted on THAT SAME 5th CONGRESS!
To INTRODUCE his bourgeois conceptions and ideas INTO the party, that cadre-author CREATED a « Marxist-sounding » analyse with SELECTED quotes 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. Based on these quotes, this cadre can now give a « Marxist » view on his BOURGEOIS conceptions. 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 »). 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 an 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.
Read the whole article further here -- >
In 1995 there existed apparently some conscious revisionist (say « renegade ») elements in the WPB who »protected their conceptions with chosen quotes of Mao and ……Stalin.
So, the « promotion » of the revisionist line on the fifth congress (against the revolutionary line based on the conceptions of Lenin in for example in « what to be done ») was using here « Maoist) opportunism "covered" with some …….« Stalinism ». The chapter « the mass-line » BEGINS with two WELLCHOSEN quotes of….. Stalin. (You can read more about the contradictions on the fifth congress of the WPB here)
To prove the revisionist aspect of the whole text I give here just the first chosen quote of Stalin.
So in that chapter of « Party of the revolution » our revisionist writes:
« Bureacratism installs itself step by step under the cadres; it is fading the fundamental conceptions about mass line.
In the conclusion of The History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolshevik) Stalin says:
« Lastly, the history of the Party teaches us that unless it has wide connections with the masses, unless it constantly strengthens these connections, unless it knows how to hearken to the voice of the masses and understand their urgent needs, unless it is prepared not only to teach the masses, but to learn from the masses, a party of the working class cannot be a real mass party capable of leading the working class millions and all the labouring people.
A party is invincible if it is able, as Lenin says, “to link itself with, to keep in close touch with, and, to a certain extent if you like, to merge with the broadest masses of the toilers—primarily with the proletariat, but also with the non-proletarian toiling masses.” (Lenin, Collected Works, Russ. ed., Vol. XXV, p. 174.)
A party perishes if it shuts itself up in its narrow party shell, if it severs itself from the masses, if it allows itself to be covered with bureaucratic rust. »[2]
The author-cadre linked it to his « Maoist » opportunism, freeing it from every possible anti Stalinist accusation from other cadres or party-members:
« It is clearly to notice that Mao inspired himself on the statements of Stalin and that it is absolutely wrong to say that « Stalin was not applying the mass line » (…) defended in the name of a wrong understood « Maoism ». (…)
Mao formulates the mass line with the following words:
« 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.[3] »
And then he can further develop his revisionist line further….. deceiving the delegates that voted for the real revolutionary congress documents AND ALSO for this revisionist document, WHICH IS IN OPPOSITION with the real revolutionary documents.
The choice of the quote of Stalin proves the conscious revisionist character of the author because it is clear that he knows very well his Marxist classics to pick up just that quote. It is the LAST part of the LAST text out of the CONCLUSION of a book that give all the general lessons that the Bolsheviks could give about the development to revolution and the development of the revolution itself and the building of socialism. He picks out of a whole of lessons, so out of his context just a quote (that is in fact metaphysical!) where Stalin says something about « masses ». But the whole book, even the whole « conclusion » is in contradiction with the line that the author develops in his text «the mass line».
For example you can choose other quotes out of this book that are in contradiction with the conceptions developed in the congress text titled «the mass line»:
« 2) Lenin showed that to extol the spontaneous process in the working- class movement, to deny that the Party had a leading role to play, to reduce its role to that of a recorder of events, meant to preach khvostism (following in the tail), to preach the conversion of the Party into a tall-piece of the spontaneous process, into a passive force of the movement, capable only of contemplating the spontaneous process and allowing events to take their own course. To advocate this meant working for the destruction of the Party, that is, leaving the working class without a party—that is, leaving the working class unarmed. But to leave the working class unarmed when it was faced by such enemies as tsardom, which was armed to the teeth, and the bourgeoisie, which was organized on modern lines and had its own party to direct its struggle against the working class, meant to betray the working class.
3) Lenin showed that to bow in worship of the spontaneous working-class movement and to belittle the importance of consciousness, of Socialist consciousness and Socialist theory, meant, in the first place, to insult the workers, who were drawn to consciousness as to light; in the second place, to lower the value of theory in the eyes of the Party, that is, to depreciate the instrument which helped the Party to understand the present and foresee the future; and, in the third place, it meant to sink completely and irrevocably into the bog of opportunism.
“Without a revolutionary theory,” Lenin said, “there can be no revolutionary movement. . . . The role of vanguard can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory.” (Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. II, pp. 47, 48.) [4]»
Out of the chapter « Conclusion » in « HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION (Bolsheviks) » where our revisionist author-cadre chose his quote(in italic-fat):
« What are the chief conclusions to be drawn from the historical path traversed by the Bolshevik Party?
What does the history of the C.P.S.U. (B.) teach us?
1) The history of the Party teaches us, first of all, that the victory of the proletarian revolution, the victory of the dictatorship of the proletariat, is impossible without a revolutionary party of the proletariat, a party free from opportunism, irreconcilable towards compromisers and capitulators, and revolutionary in its attitude towards the bourgeoisie and its state power. (…)
The history of the Party teaches us that the ordinary Social-Democratic Party of the West-European type, brought up under conditions of civil peace, trailing in the wake of the opportunists, dreaming of “social reforms,” and dreading social revolution, cannot be such a party.
The history of the Party teaches us that only a party of the new type, a Marxist-Leninist party, a party of social revolution, a party capable of preparing the proletariat for decisive battles against the bourgeoisie and of organizing the victory of the proletarian revolution, can be such a party. (…)
2) The history of the Party further teaches us that a party of the working class cannot perform the role of leader of its class, cannot perform the role of organizer and leader of the proletarian revolution, unless it has mastered the advanced theory of the working-class movement, the Marxist-Leninist theory. (…)
Before the Second Russian Revolution (February 1917), the Marxists of all countries assumed that the parliamentary democratic republic was the most suitable form of political organization of society in the period of transition from capitalism to Socialism. It is true that in the seventies Marx stated that the most suitable form for the dictatorship of the proletariat was a political organization of the type of the Paris Commune, and not the parliamentary republic. But, unfortunately, Marx did not develop this proposition any further in his writings and it was committed to oblivion. Moreover, Engels’ authoritative statement in his criticism of the draft of the Erfurt Program in 1891, namely, that “the democratic republic . . . is . . . the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat” left no doubt that the Marxists continued to regard the democratic republic as the political form for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Engels’ proposition later became a guiding principle for all Marxists, including Lenin. However, the Russian Revolution of 1905, and especially the Revolution of February 1917, advanced a new form of political organization of society—the Soviets of Workers’ and Peasants’ Deputies. As a result of a study of the experience of the two Russian revolutions, Lenin, on the basis of the theory of Marxism, arrived at the conclusion that the best political form for the dictatorship of the proletariat was not a parliamentary democratic republic, but a republic of Soviets. (…)
3) The history of the Party further teaches us that unless the petty bourgeois parties which are active within the ranks of the working class and which push the backward sections of the working class into the arms of the bourgeoisie, thus splitting the unity of the working class, are smashed, the victory of the proletarian revolution is impossible.
The history of our Party is the history of the struggle against the petty-bourgeois parties—the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, Anarchists and nationalists—and of the utter defeat of these parties. If these parties had not been vanquished and driven out of the ranks of the working class, the unity of the working class could not have been achieved; and if the working class had not been united, it would have been impossible to achieve the victory of the proletarian revolution.
If these parties, which at first stood for the preservation of capitalism, and later, after the October Revolution, for the restoration of capitalism, had not been utterly defeated, it would have been impossible to preserve the dictatorship of the proletariat, to defeat the foreign armed intervention, and to build up Socialism.
It cannot be regarded as an accident that all the petty-bourgeois parties, which styled themselves “revolutionary” and “socialist” parties in order to deceive the people—the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, Anarchists and nationalists—became counter-revolutionary parties even before the October Socialist Revolution, and later turned into agents of foreign bourgeois espionage services, into a gang of spies, wreckers, diversionists, assassins and traitors to the country.
“The unity of the proletariat in the epoch of social revolution,” Lenin says, “can be achieved only by the extreme revolutionary party of Marxism, and only by a relentless struggle against all other parties.” (Lenin, Collected Works, Russ. ed., Vol. XXVI, p. 50.)
4) The history of the Party further teaches us that unless the Party of the working class wages an uncompromising struggle against the opportunists within its own ranks, unless it smashes the capitulators in its own midst, it cannot preserve unity and discipline within its ranks, it cannot perform its role of organizer and leader of the proletarian revolution, nor its role as the builder of the new, Socialist society. (…)
It may seem to some that the Bolsheviks devoted far too much time to this struggle against the opportunist elements within the Party, that they overrated their importance. But that is altogether wrong. Opportunism in our midst is like an ulcer in a healthy organism, and must not be tolerated. The Party is the leading detachment of the working class, its advanced fortress, its general staff. Sceptics, opportunists, capitulators and traitors cannot be tolerated on the directing staff of the working class. If, while it is carrying on a life and death fight against the bourgeoisie, there are capitulators and traitors on its own staff, within its own fortress, the working class will be caught between two fires, from the front and the rear. Clearly, such a struggle can only end in defeat.
The easiest way to capture a fortress is from within. To attain victory, the Party of the working class, its directing staff, its advanced fortress, must first be purged of capitulators, deserters, scabs and traitors. (…)
“With reformists, Mensheviks, in our ranks,” Lenin said, “it is impossible to achieve victory in the proletarian revolution, it is impossible to retain it. That is obvious in principle, and it has been strikingly confirmed by the experience both of Russia and Hungary . . . In Russia, difficult situations have arisen many times, when the Soviet regime would most certainly have been overthrown had Mensheviks, reformists and petty-bourgeois democrats remained in our Party. . . .” (Lenin, Collected Works, Russ. ed., Vol. XXV, pp. 462-63.)
“Our Party,” Comrade Stalin says, “succeeded in creating internal unity and unexampled cohesion of its ranks primarily because it was able in good time to purge itself of the opportunist pollution, because it was able to rid its ranks of the Liquidators, the Mensheviks.
Proletarian parties develop and become strong by purging themselves of opportunists and reformists, social-imperialists and social-chauvinists, social-patriots and social-pacifists. The Party becomes strong by purging itself of opportunist elements.” (Joseph Stalin, Leninism.)
5) The history of the Party further teaches us that a party cannot perform its role as leader of the working class if, carried away by success, it begins to grow conceited, ceases to observe the defects in its work, and fears to acknowledge its mistakes and frankly and honestly to correct them in good time.
A party is invincible if it does not fear criticism and self-criticism, if it does not gloss over the mistakes and defects in its work, if it teaches and educates its cadres by drawing the lessons from the mistakes in Party work, and if it knows how to correct its mistakes in time.
A party perishes if it conceals its mistakes, if it glosses over sore problems, if it covers up its shortcomings by pretending that all is well, if it is intolerant of criticism and self-criticism, if it gives way to self complacency and vainglory and if it rests on its laurels. (…)
6) Lastly, the history of the Party teaches us that unless it has wide connections with the masses, unless it constantly strengthens these connections, unless it knows how to hearken to the voice of the masses and understand their urgent needs, unless it is prepared not only to teach the masses, but to learn from the masses, a party of the working class cannot be a real mass party capable of leading the working class millions and all the labouring people.
A party is invincible if it is able, as Lenin says, “to link itself with, to keep in close touch with, and, to a certain extent if you like, to merge with the broadest masses of the toilers—primarily with the proletariat, but also with the non-proletarian toiling masses.” (Lenin, Collected Works, Russ. ed., Vol. XXV, p. 174.)
A party perishes if it shuts itself up in its narrow party shell, if it severs itself from the masses, if it allows itself to be covered with bureaucratic rust.[5] »
So what Stalin here said about « connections with the masses » is an unbreakable part of a whole of lessons. It is revisionism to choose just that quote out of his context, to prove your IDEA of what is the truth.
In 1999, after an election campaign, in which the WPB participate, a resolution is written by the Central Committee: « the Resolution of 1999 ». Officially it referred to the whole 5th Congress, to all the congress documents, so to the whole book « Party of the revolution ». BUT IN FACT, as I shall prove in the next article, it referred ONLY to the revisionist text in the Chapter III, part 3: The mass line.
[1] « On certain aspects of the struggle against revisionism - For the unity of all communists, in defence of proletarian internationalism », by Ludo Martens, Report presented to the Seminary March 1995, 9 - 12 India.
[2] Stalin, History of the Communist party of the Soviet Union (Bolshevik), facsimile Het Progressieve Boek, uitgave van 1938, p.476-477.
[3] 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.
[4] Out of « HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION (Bolsheviks) », EDITED BY A COMMISSION OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE C.P.S.U. (B.) AUTHORIZED BY THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE C.P.S.U. (B.), p.36.
[5] Out of « HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION (Bolsheviks) », EDITED BY A COMMISSION OF THE CENTRAL COMM I TT EE O F THE C.P.S.U. (B.) AUTHORIZED BY THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE C. P. S. U. (B.), p 353, « Conclusion », From Marx to Mao ML © Digital Reprints 2006
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten