After I analysed (beginning here) the first lie of Peter Mertens (president since 2008 of the WPB) « I am (we are) no longer Stalinist », I started here to analyse the second lie « I am (we are) no longer Maoist ». I am now continuing that analyse…..
Based on a opportunist « Maoist » line, that was not countered and beaten on the fifth congres of the WPB in 1995, but in fact VOTED and ACCEPTED (apparently also by me, as I was delegate on that congress…) a important opportunist conception developed in the WPB: « Today the results in elections are forming a judgement about the working of the WPB as a revolutionary communist party » (you can read here more about this)
This is NOT a Marxist or dialectical materialist obtained conclusion but a CONCEPTION, an IDEA of which some cadres and members of the WPB were convinced ALREADY in ADVANCE or as they thought « that was proven by the direct practical experience » (= empirism).
This IDEA, this CONCEPTION became the so-called « conclusion » of a « Marxist analyse » in which is « referred » (in a subjective way of picking quotes) to the work of Lenin « Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder».
When you use this non-Marxist method of analysing, THINKING that you are correctly applying scientific socialism (as a lot of former comrades, still member of the WPB are doing, I think), then your are an OPPORTUNIST, to my opinion.
When you are CONSCIOUSLY applying this method of analysing, to defeat the revolutionary line of a communist party, and you are yourself still CADRE of that communist party, then you are a REVISIONIST, analysing out of a BOURGEOIS class point of view.
Herwig Lerouge, a national cadre, and part of the National Leadership, since the founding of AMADA (Alle Macht Aan De Arbeiders -All Power To The Workers- in 1970) and the founding of the WPB (the Workers Party of Belgium - Partij Van De Arbeid - PVDA- in 1979), has the doubtful « honour » of the first use of this opportunist conception in a « Marxist » analyse.
In Marxist Studies 27/1995 (see on marx.be), he wrote:
« During the …. European elections in June 1994, the WPB doubled her score … This result is also (…) a result of the amelioration of the organisational work in the party … At the same time this result proves that the party still disposes of a lot of potential possibilities …
The campaign for the law-giving elections of May 1995 had to allow to proceed further with the rectification of the party work. From by the start of the election campaign of May 1995 we have linked our election results with the rectification of the mistakes in the work of the leading organs of our party …. The election campaign is a campaign to rectify the party. The rectification will last longer than the election campaign, but we have to put the objectives in function of the 4% that we should have to obtain. »
And yet Herwig is criticising a cadre in this same article who dared to say: « Election-results are never a barometer for the work of the party » !!
The opportunist conception (« results in the election ARE a barometer of how a revolutionary party is working » is then IMPOSED to the whole party by the Resolution of 1999 of the Central Committee, were it says:
"It is not normal that we stagnate today, after thirty years of permanent presence on the scene, after what was probably the best election campaign of our history. That is the reason that we have to say that the elections are a big political defeat for the party, in which mistakes are expressed that we are carrying along already for years.
Al points of balance out of the elections are already in « Party of the revolution ». "
This opportunist statement or conception is one of the most important points on which a CONSCIOUS development of revisionism has occurred in the WPB.
This point off view « elections gives a judgement about the working of the party as a revolutionary communist party » was taken in 1995 and in 1999 AFTER what was judged as « a bad election result ».
In 2003, an election campaign was STARTED in fact OU OF this point of view. The way in which the WPB was ORGANISED to participate at the elections and in which she POLITICALLY participate at the elections was BASED on this point of view. The whole leadership agreed on this: as well as Nadine Rosa Rosso, as Boudewijn Deckers, as Peter Mertens, as Jo Cottenier, as Herwig Lerouge….
I don’t know if there were many protest-reports BEFORE the beginning of the election-campaign that were internally sent from lower levels to the national leadership when political motivation texts about the coming election campaign were discussed on every level.
I know that a report from me (and from the whole base-group in which I was organised), made BEFORE the start of the election-campaign, in which I (we) protested against the way the party was participating at the election, HAS NEVER BEEN ANSWERED. And ORALLY, cadres said, that my behaviour was disloyal and I had just to participate at the election campaign without further discussion. (this is already exhaustively reported -but in Dutch - on this web log. Once I will translate it all)
The IDEA of many possible voters that would vote ant capitalist and anti imperialist
The IDEA was (so the CONCEPTION about what was fact or truth, was) that there was a strong ant capitalist mentality in the (Belgian) population (or at least among them that had a right to VOTE). And also that out of this anti-capitalist mentality there was a strong popular (so in fact anti-imperialist) resistance against the war in Iraq. And it was thought that the profile of the WPB (and of her partner in the « anti war movement », the Arabic European League(AEL) of Dyab Abu Jahjah) was very popular certainly among the third generation of the Arabic migrants (who had the Belgian nationality AND the right to vote). This popularity should result in enough votes to result in « revolutionary delegates in the parliament ». This was politically translated in the list RESIST composed by members and sympathisers of the WPB and of members and sympathisers of the AEL, with on top: Dyab Abu Jahjah.
REMARK: I am speaking here about the opportunism of the WPB, NOT that of the AEL, which was NOT profiling herself as a Marxist or communist organisation. The AEL is a radical organisation struggling for, and demanding for (not begging for!) a total equality in rights in Europe for all European citizens with an Arabic or Islamic background. I agreed, and am still agreeing about the comparison of Dyab Abu Jahjah with Malcolm X!
Self-installed leadership of WPB:« Electoral debacle is the fault of Nadine»
Whenever the result was NOT enough to get at least one delegate and the election result (number of votes) was judged as « very bad » or as a « debacle », the origin of this was laid by a wrong « leftist » working of the party. This « leftism » should be the reason that there was not an investigation to the real political point of view of « the masses » (so the Belgian voters or « new » Belgian with a right to vote) and not having based on the election campaign on THAT point of view. A « correct applying of the mass line » should have led to a kind of « left reformist populism » that should have more chance to attract votes!
So the « critic » of the « new » self-installed and NOT elected party leadership to Nadine was that Nadine (who was leading the party as secretary general) not had consequently taken as base, the Resolution of 1999.
In Solidair of 7 September 2005 (you can find this in the Solidair archive on the website) the National cadres of the WPB are saying:
« We have finished the discussion with the whole party. In June we brought together 344 representatives together on our provincial congresses. The participants on the congresses represented our 1.972 members and were selected by their specific sections. The meaning of the congresses was to make a year balance, but also to look to the perspectives for the next year…
Thanks to the provincial congresses the whole party has given a mission to the national leadership. »
That « mission » was:
« The WPB will be the consequent defender of the disability pension. Just as we will be the party of the « kiwi model ». we will also react on all problems with which workers are confronted. We will give to those the biggest possible attention. »
But the most important breakthrough of opportunist conceptions in the WPB happened by involving the whole party by the making of the balance of the elections of the 18th of May 2003 as if it was a balance about the whole working of the WPB as a revolutionary party.
The balance of the WPB-leadership of the elections on the 18th of May 2003, in Solidair 38 of the 8th of October 2003
First remark: the emphasising in fat-italic is by me.
Second remark: there was a unanimity in the leadership about this balance, so between Nadine Rosa Rosso, still secretary general and Peter Mertens, Boudewijn Deckers and Co who expelled Nadine in December 2003.
« the party has a dubious attitude towards elections. At one hand the party from top to base is in each election campaign, active for hundred percent. But at the other hand the party has no strategy to get delegates been elected. The only exception was the campaign for the communal elections of 2000, for which we worked out for almost a year a strategy to get five delegates. In that we succeeded.
In 1985 the whole party was active to have Kris Merckx elected as parliamentary delegate for the province of Antwerp….It was Maggy Doumen who got elected and in the provincial council. And that succeeded again in 1987.
We have drought the wrong lessons out of it in the document « The WPB and the participation at the elections », that we worked out in 1991. The objective to have delegates elected became totally secondary. The election campaigns were since then first of all campaigns to inform the people about our programme, to win new collaborators and to ameliorate our score in the elections.
Because we did not thought about the possibility to get real delegates elected and not were working out a strategy to achieve this, we have negated real chances….
Without well thought strategy, based on figures and facts and on our strong points and above all on a analyse of the strategy of the other parties it is not possible for the party leadership to fix correct objectives.
For the elections of 2003 the party leadership is changed of point of view in just several months. In June 2002 we still thought that it was practically impossible to have a delegate elected in the parliamentary elections of May 2003. But under pressure of what was happening - the war, our party-doctors in Bagdad, the dynamic of the workers and unionists on the list MARIA- there was suddenly that objective to have in one stroke three delegates.
We want to break definitively with that way of leadership. All responsible party cadres got the order to develop al necessary elements for a successful election strategy….
We are convinced that if we regularly consult our members, like our new statutes demand, we can finish our strategy and make it effective…
A big number of party members and friends sent many critics and proposals to the leadership about the elections of the 18th of May. They have been put together during the summer an classified by some members of the Central Committee. Altogether hundreds of pages, rich of concrete facts. The text is submitted to the responsible party cadres who have to work out proposals for the campaign against the government and the employers….
During the election campaign we for ourselves had put the accent on the resistance against the war in Iraq, that had begun two months before the start of the elections….
Roger Van Maelen (WPB-member): « But during the elections there came an end to the war, and whole that part of the campaign collapsed. But even then the party kept on busy with the war, meanwhile the people were already discussing about a lot of other things: unemployment, social security, pensions… »
Afterwards, a lot of members as Roger Van Maelen, wrote us that we had to profile us on de daily problems of the people like the fear to lose your job (look at what was happening ad Ford), the expensive medicines , the pensions….or mobility, or housing. We have to think about how we can put and use all those different themes together the same time.
At the same time we have learn to listen better to know precisely which problem we have to handle first among all those themes.
Different members insist on to work on very concrete things and above all…. Staying working on it until we realise our objective. Take for example medical care. « We cannot stay on hammering only on « free medical care » we have to work on concrete points, one problem after one another »…
Our doctor Dirk Van Duppen conclude already in august that patients with high cholesterol, paid to much for there medication….
By tying himself on this case, Dirk Van Duppen realised a first victory in the battle for cheap medecines. The prices of the cholesterol medication will lower with a half.
Today docter Dirk Van Duppen is working with people of different horizons at a proposal of law for cheaper medication, based on the system that gave in New Zealand the best medication at the lowest price. To win that battle, a long ongoing campaign is needed.
There is a petition been worked out.
Before we begin with all kinds of campaigns and proposals, we will take enough time to make a « tree of problems», as it is mentioned in handbooks about investigations….
On this we will base the points of struggle on which we will put the accent. Based on those results we also realise the program with which we go to the elections in June next year, for the regional and European elections. »
This balance forms then the starting point of « involving of all members » (REMARK: « being member of the WPB » had a totally other meaning than in 2003, as you will see later) in the realisation of the « ACTION-program » of the WPB, in 2004. In 2006, that program became the « ELECTION-program » of the « NEW » WPB (a « renewal that started in 2004 »,dixit Peter Mertens). Where in the ACTION-program was stated that the real objective of the WPB was revolution and the installing of socialism as first step to communism, in the ELECTION-program was said « defending socialism » existing in countries …elsewhere in the world.
The article in Solidair, here below, speaks about « balance of the elections ». This balance about the elections you could read here above.
REMARK: At the realising of that balance, Nadine Rosa Rosso, is still involved as Secretary General. Also the inquiry, where Jan Hasaers speaks about, is still realised under leadership of Nadine Rosa Rosso. The USE of the results of this inquiry, from februari 2004, with which is made first a « ACTION-program » and later on a « ELECTION-program » is done without Nadine, she was then expelled….
On Solidair.org,Wednesday 26 November 2003:
« The WPB about the enquiry « Let hear your voice », that just has been started…
Jan Hasaers. « The inquiry is a result of the balance that we made about the last elections(…) Many party members are judging (…. )that we should far more be concerned about the daily problems of the people
Based on this critic we made a list of the fiftieen à twenty problems that seemed to us to be the most important problems.(…) we asked the people what for them are the three most important themes, out of the list that we propose.
They can add themselves other themes. At the other hand, we ask what is for each of those themes THE main problem….
Who can participate with the inquiry?
Jan Hasaers. "We have asked this first at our members, during the youngest general meetings….we present the inquiry also to those members who could not come to those meetings. A lot of them want to let fill in the inquiry also by their colleagues or neighbours. We present it also to our sympathisers, to the people with whom we are cooperating often, like the collaborators of 11.11.11 or other organisations. ..»
The balance about the elections of 18 May 2003 was made by the leadership of the WPB, based on « numerous critics and proposals » of party members and sympathisers. The leadership of the WPB declared that she got DIRECTLY « HUNDREDS » of notes and reports. They were NOT the result of a good working of democratic centralism, that is determined by the working of the ORGANISATION-structure of a communist party. Hereby will a certain level of leadership works on and discuses about the reports of organisation-levels just under it. Afterwards the reports, WITH the analyse and comments of that certain leadership-level will be centralised on the national leadership-level. The analyses, guidelines and answers by the national leadership on the reports will then go the opposite direction until it will come to the base level.
Now, every member had just to accept the statement of the WPB-leadership: « The biggest part of those reports had mostly identical remarks, critics and proposals » what were than identical to the conclusions of the leadership in her balance of the ELECTIONS…
All those conclusions were NOT yet confirmed by a congress. One of those conclusions of the leadership of that moment was to go on with the enquiry « Let hear your voice ». The party members have not give the green light for this on a congress. By the way… the NEW LEADERSHIP of the WPB is installed in 2004, NOT by voting on a congress, but installed by herself, after internal problems coming forth out of …….elections.
To give it a « democratic » aspect, the cadres are speaking on 7 October 2005 about « provincial congresses that gave a mission » to the self-installed leadership of 2004.
There was a balance of the elections made by a faction inside the leadership of the WPB, end 2003.
There was decided to a « RENEWAL of the party » in 2004 (dixit Peter Mertens)
One of the conclusions was: making a program with which in the first place could be scored in the elections and that finally should result in chosen delegates.
1995:Party of the Revolution; 2004: Party of reforms. « Confirmation » in 2008
The party would NO MORE first of all be directed to prepare the revolution (active working on the growth of mass movements and class struggle, as well in numbers as in consciousness), EVEN when this was once the collective decision of ALL MEMBERS on the fifth congress in1995! Until then every member could discuss and decide by his base group that could sent minimal two delegates to a congress, or by the working of democratic centralism. But in 2001, on the second session of the seventh congress there were voted new statutes, with two possible memberships: a decisive membership and a consultative membership. Where the « old » statutes were conform with the Leninist principles (re-confirmed of the 5th congress) it was apparently not noticed by the delegates on the seventh congress in 2001 that the « new » proposed (and voted) statutes were OPPOSED to those principles.
These new statutory situation has been used for a manipulation by a faction in the leadership.
A big expansion of new CONSULTATIVE members resulted in a majority of consultative members over the number of decisive members on « general meetings of members » . On those general meetings of members was then decided (« majority against minority ») for what has to be in the new ACTION-program. Also the choices made by « 5000 ordinary Belgians » (dixit Peter Mertens) were more important than the choices that would be made by the real DECISIVE party-members. The DECISIVE members were those persons who were once convinced to become member of a revolutionary communist party. It was just « majority against minority ». The possible choices then, were also restricted. It was the leadership who made the list of possible choices, in the form of that PREPARED « inquiry » . The inquiry that had to lead to the ACTION-program (the later ELECTION-program) was in fact a prepared list of multiple choices.
The first result was: a working as a that of a reformist party, first of all directed on having good results in elections.
The second result:: a reformist program that has to lead to a good score in elections.
The two results that were already achieved in 2004, formed « the mission » (so retroactively….) that the provincial congresses were allowed to give to a, in 2004 self-installed, leadership.
So the inquiry get its « imposed » objective, « given by the balance of the elections ».
This « renewed » working was then just confirmed on the 8th congress in February 2008.
So we can conclude that the « renewed » WPB finds her origins in the text of chapter III, part 3 of « Party of the Revolution ». That text was, as I proved, a « Maoist » opportunist text. (read about this, here)
So when Peter Mertens is pretending « We are no longer Maoists », he is lying: he (and the actual WPB is STILL Maoist, it is at this moment a party that is based on « Maoist » opportunism. It was against that « Maoist » opportunism that Ludo Martens was just fighting!
In the next article I will analyse another lie of Peter Mertens: « We have no model, no example to follow, of socialism»
 In fact the most important accusation out of the six accusations to Nadine Rosa Rosso of that « new » self installed and NOT elected leadership end 2003-beginning 2004. That six accusations were the reason of her being expelled by that « temporal commission that had to handle the internal ’ electoral ’ crisis » - that temporal commission that installed herself as the new leadership!
 what is called in dutch « brugpensioen » is in fact a kind of disability pension, paid for a part by contribution of the employerz and a part by the fund of unemployment. It has NOT an old age pension.
 That is a system (that exist in New Zealand - so « kiwi-model ») of public tender at the big farma-monopolies for the medicines that will be subsidied by the government for the users/patients.
 voice and vote is both « stem ». So it is also « let hear your vote »…. Allusion to elections.
 11.11.11 is an organisation in which the most third world ngo’s of Belgium are represented.
 A consultative member has not to agree and to defend the revolutionary program of the WPB. Consultative members are mostly recruited among collaborators during….elections.
 « General meetings of members », often in public rooms, are against all rules of conspiracy of the Leninist party-principles.