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 came now to the famous Resolution of 1999.
« Of: Central Committee 7th august 1999
To: Until the level of the delegates of the provincial congress
Part. nr: 1770.899
Resolution of the Central Committee about the election campaign
1. It is not normal that we are stagnating today, after thirty year of permanent presence on the domain, ten years after the climax of the anticommunist campaign, after the most important movements of mass struggle that Belgium was knowing out of his history, after that we were militating in all the movements of struggle and after what was perhaps the best election campaign out of our own history. Therefore we have to conclude that the elections formed a big political defeat for the party, were mistakes emerged that we were carry along already many years.
2. All the conclusions that we can make, analysing the elections, are already in « Party of the revolution ». We have to analyse why we were not capable to rectify and even not to assimilate what a Congress has decided, based on the centralising of many reports and notes. That is posing the problem of the ideological struggle for the real unifying through the implementation of the decisions in the concrete practice.
3. Are the causes of this defeat first of all intern or extern? Is the most important mistake made by the party of is the problem, the level of consciousness of the masses? « The result has nothing to do with the mistakes of the party, but it expresses the actual political level of the masses»
4. We are the most important target of all bourgeois, petty bourgeois and opportunist powers. To the outside, it is in our interest to underline the following: the unified party of capital is struggling against the unified party of the workers.
5. But intern and on the level of the cadres we have to say that our intern mistakes are the most important, because with these same enemies, after all our political activities of the past four years, we had normally had doing better. Franco D’Orazio: « the defeat of the WPB is serious. With all members that you have, this result means that you have a serious problem.»
6. Saying that our bad result has nothing to do with the mistakes of the party, is putting his head in the sand, is sectarism, bureacratism, justifying the lack of capacity to bring forward a simple revolutionary understandable message. Not going to the base of things, in the analyse of our mistakes, is the biggest danger. Since the 5th congress, years have been passing by and we have little rectified….»
The whole resolution is parting of the idea: « When a communist party is participating in elections, than the election - result, makes a conclusion about the working of the party and her members IN GENERAL ». So a bad result in the election, for example less votes than the elections before, is saying: « the party is working badly »……and a better result, and perhaps chosen delegates say: « the party, and her members are working in a good way. » So having good elections results will decide about the correct functioning of the revolutionary communist party! The objective, having as much votes (or chosen delegates) that is possible, decides about the political line, the organisation criteria and the guidelines for each member.
But these conclusions, about which is said: « They are already all in ’ Party of the revolution’ » are only to justify with a specific PART of « Party of the revolution » ……namely
Chapter III, part 3, « fighting bureacratism, strengthen the bounds with the masses».(See my partial translation of that book, and so also of that chapter here)
Perhaps you are saying: « Nico you are seeing ghosts! » OK, I will prove this statement.
In 2003 the WPB participated again in an election. In the analyse of the results, the leadership of the WPB spoke about « a debacle ». I resulted in an « intern crisis-situation ». The whole history I will analyse later. But there was a resolution made by the leadership of the WPB (in fact of a kind of interim-leadership - installed by themselves and NOT elected on a congress) in 2004: « Resolution about the former general secretary Nadine Rosa-Rosso and the former cadre-responsible Luk Vervaet, 5th of April 2004 »
In this Resolution is written:
« In March 1999 the Central Committee accepted a resolution against leftism, also against her[1] conceptions. The Resolution of June 1999 is making up the balance of the past election-campaign.
Point 1 says: « We have to say that the elections were a big political defeat for the party, in which we see mistakes that we are carry along already many years. »
Point 2 says: « We have to study again « Party of the Revolution », chapter III, part 3: fighting bureacratism, strengthen the bounds with the masses.
Probably are all big points of balance about the elections already in this. »
And then in a note by this paragraph « We are quoting here the original version of this point like it was distributed to the members of the CC, just after the CC of June 1999. In the version distributed to all party-members the phrase pointing at « Party of the Revolution, chapter III, part 3 » was replaced by a phrase pointing at « Party of the Revolution »in general .»
So there was in 1999 a cadre (influenced by opportunism) who made a project-resolution that has to be discussed before distributing to the whole party. The CC criticised not the global line of this project-resolution, they just make the remark: « We have to say that we are basing ourselves on the whole of congress-documents and not jus on one document out of a whole. » And so only that phrase was changed (that proved that the whole resolution was indeed based on ONLY chapter III, part 3).
And that resolution had to be assimilated by all the members….
Further in Resolution of 1999 is said: « It is adventurism and activism to intervene in the ‘riots’ (mend is the riots of the young migrants, Nico) when we have no line to enter the environments of the young migrants, …. » this statement in line with chapter III, part 3 of « Party of the Revolution » is in CONTRADICTION with another document of that same 5th congress were it said:
« 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… (…)
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. »
This is jut one example (I will perhaps, when there should be discussion further analyse the Resolution of 1999) that led to my conclusion that the political line of Resolution of 1999 is that of « Maoist » opportunism coming out of the 5th congress documents; and is in contradiction with the revolutionary line, ALSO in the documents of the 5th congress.
In the next article I will explain how the whole « renewal » of the WPB that was « beginning in 2004 » is based on this « Maoist » Resolution of 1999.
I want just give her an ALTERNATIVE analyse about the elections of 1999, a more consequent communist and Marxist analyse, that of Ludo Martens, who is apparently not followed by the rest of the leadership of the WPB…..
In Solidair nr. 24 • 16 June 1999. Ludo Martens: We don’t strive after easy victories.
A short speech of Ludo Martens in Brussels on a WPB-meeting
« In 1979, by the founding of the WPB, Kabila was here. He was sought by the police of Mobuto and had to hide himself.
In Zaire it was impossible for him to let the massed know of his program. He had not any possibility to mobilise the masses for his just cause. He had no public that he could convince. Mobutu and his mates had all the state power in their hands and their blind violence caused hundred of thousands of deaths. At the same time they worked with a devilish demagogy. Those elements are going together.
This is a characteristic of fascism. Hitler had Goebbels. Several months before the war, in 1939, he still organised with his Nazi-party a « peace-congress ».
Today we see how the whole imperialist world gets more and more characteristics of fascism.
With blind violence Yugoslavia has been bombed, and is presented to us as a humanitarian intervention to save the peace.
Imperialism is breaking today with all rules of the international justice. Nine year ago they attacked Iraq, in name of the international justice.
Who could imagine, twenty years ago, that the NATO, against al rules of international justice would start a most barbaric war of aggression in the heart of Europe?
The Congolese people have made innumerable sacrifices, under the 32 years of Mobutu-dictatorship, to choose finally to chase that individual with the weapons.
But before it was so far, they have seen pass al kinds of liars and demagogues. You cannot predict when the people have enough of all those lies and violence of the bourgeoisie. Those who strive for easy victories find what they want in the bourgeois parties and are doing just that what the bourgeoisie is asking them to do.
Just by the beginning Agalev[2] has taken that road and today that party is a speaking-tube of the big bourgeoisie and of imperialism. Hopefully they get into the government. Everybody will see that in no way they dare to attack the fundaments of this unjust society, of capitalism and imperialism.
The WPB has led an outstanding campaign. In that spirit we have to go yet more to the masses, place ourselves on their level and convince them of the necessity to organise themselves and to fight. We have to have confidence in the fact that the masses one day will have enough experience to see the criminal nature of the economic system that is exploiting and suffocating the world. »
Ok, now to the next article.
[1] Pointing at Nadine Rosa Rosso, Secretary General (replacing the president of the WPB, Ludo Martens who was almost full-time working in Congo) of the WPB from 1995 until end 2003-begin 2004 when she was expelled out of the WPB. (Nico)
[2] Agalev - Anders GAan LEVen, ‘to live in an alternative way’ is the ecologist party in the Dutch-spoken part of Belgium.( Nico)
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten