Fighting opportunism, to beat revisionism 5

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 5^th 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 8^th 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 5^th 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 5^th 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 5^th 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 5^th 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.

Proposal of WPB to GM-workers is reformist, not marxist

In function of the elections in Belgium this year, every party that participate in the elections try to give his « unique » profile in the media, to win as much votes as possible.
In KNACK nr 7 of 11 februari 2008 (KNACK is a weekly as TIME, or NEWSWEEK) Peter Mertens the actual president of the WPB (PVDA in dutch, PTB in French) is telling in what the WPB differs with other « left » parties:
« Only we put the system into discussion .. We have stated again clearly that we are e Marxist party and that we defend a socialist society. But from now on, we will do this by involving as much as possible people in concrete projects and points of struggle. »
On a meeting I asked Jo Cottenier (also national cadre of the WPB) if the party should not tell now clearly to the people that capitalism offers no more future to humanity, that man has to tear it down and replace it by a socialist plan economy, he said:
« That is dogmatic. You have to do proposals that break with the capitalist logic, that put the people into struggle because those proposals are connected to the things that are at the moment concerning the people. You can believe it or not, but we are discussing also about the necessity of socialism individually with our contacts in the enterprises and the union. »
So is the WPB Marxist and revolutionary? (and so the other « left » parties participating in the elections not?)
Let see if the WPB makes really the difference!

On the website pvda.be on 10 februrari, Joris Van Gorp, responsible of the WPB of the province Antwerp proposed the following to the workers of GM-Antwerp (I am curious what the WPB of the province Limbourg will propose to the workers of FORD and the WPB of Brussels to the workers of AUDI….):

« Why not fighting for a GM-Euro-Car, taken over by Europe, by doing an offer by the European Union on GM-Europe to the share-holders of GM? Because then, you will sit to the table were the decisions are made to defend employment in a nationalised GM-Euro-Car under the control of the European Union.
A nationalised GM-EuroCar, under control of the European Union, can spread the decrease of the production over all the European production sites and combine this with decrease of the work-time or the organising of the temporary unemployment (…) Only in this way the money of the community can really be used for conserving employment an a meaningful production.
A nationalised enterprise offers advantages. Now environment-friendly solutions are not developed, because of the hunt on profit. In a nationalised enterprise the research can be planned in this direction.
Private capital may not have the leadership in this nationalised enterprise. There has to come a new management being put under control of the workers and their unions and of the people. These new managers have to be competent that have shown their capabilities already in the production sites of GM. The European unions have to have decision -power in putting in charge of these managers. And it has to be possible to fire these managers when they are not capable.
A GM-EuroCar is not the solution out of the crisis in the car production, nor of the chaos that is created by the market-economy and the hunt on profit. Therefore another economy is needed and a socialist society.
The actual overcapacity in the car-production is a consequence of the insane competition between the car-producers. A GM-EuroCar would invest no more in more production-capacity. In this way a nationalised enterprise offers already a part of the solution of the overcapacity. And above all will a nationalisation stimulate the discussion about another look on car-industry that is needing planning more than ever, a stricter control of the capacity, the development of a energy-saving project of the transport problem in our society. »

So, Joris is reasoning as follows: if there is sufficient struggle developing that will be continuing until al the conditions are fulfilled (decision-power of the unions by hiring new managers, that can also be fired and sitting to the decision-table of the unions for the spreading of the decrease of the production, the organising of the decrease of the work-time and the temporary unemployment to get rid of the overcapacity ….) the jobs and the salaries can be guaranteed..
This depends, of course, also of how this decrease of work-time (with of without preservation of salary -and so an adaptation of the hourly salary) and how temporary unemployment (with or without subsidy - of course paid by the enterpise otherwise paid by your own paid taxes - to 100% of your salary, so in fact your salary paid for NOT working) is organised.
But the overcapacity, so Joris had to admit, will hereby not be ended; although « a GM-EuroCar can offer a serious contribution to a solution ». Perhaps there has first to be struggled for Euro-Ford and Euro-Audi? …..and perhaps also for Euro-Renault and Euro-Peugeot and what ever more?
Joris recognised that « for a real solution for the overcapacity there is a struggle needed for another economy and a socialist society ».
Why then not propagating this to the workers and making them conscious to struggle for « another economy and a socialist society », …. That is Joris not mentioning to us.

Finally, Joris is misleading the workers!
Because even when the result of the struggle of the workers by GM-Antwerp (or should it be by the whole GM-Europe?) should be, the installing of a European state-enterprise (« under the control of the European Union » what should be in heavens name the meaning of this?) INCLUDED all the put forward conditions, then it would be the result of a struggle that on a certain moment gets the character of a struggle against the capitalist order in Europe itself!
ONLY THEN the European capitalists would « allow » such a « nationalisation » (a rather unclear formulation because is Joris now estimating that it is the BELGIAN (member-)state once has to be overthrown or is the European Union the actual capitalist state-apparatus?). So in fact this would be « allowed » on the moment that the workers of Europe themselves are putting the struggle for « another economy and a socialist society » on the agenda. That will be however not the work of Joris of the WPB.

« Nationalising » only the car-assemblage of only 1 mark: GM?
And, IS it really a solution to put the assemblage of cars of 1 mark in a « nationalised » ( but European?)company «under the control of the European Union»?
What with al the companies and factories for the production of all kinds of interim-products, machineries and base-products for the car production, lying stream upwards: the plastic- and metal producing facilities, the plastic- and metal transforming facilities, the chemical-industries (base products for paint, glue, plastic, refining of oil,…), the electronics industry, steel factories, the energy producing and energy distributing industry,…..
In this imperialist world, the production of all kind of end products (so also that of CARS) is a SOCIAL production (where for the production of one type of products, hundreds of thousands workers are involved in production lines that are chained one to another.
And when there is an overcapacity of cars, it exist in ALL the marks together (and not alone at GM) and in the WHOLE production-chain from resources, over interim products until in the assemblage itself. ALSO there will be closures, job-losses, salary-decrease, deterioration of working conditions and an increase of exploitation level.
And Joris, is the solution there also « nationalisation under the control of the European Union"?

And what is the meaning of « nationalisation under control of the European Union »?
The European Union is the state apparatus in service of the big monopolies. Following THEIR orders the European Union is doing a policy of privatisation, dismantling all social security and al kinds of alternative income (as pension) and increasing the level of exploitation for all the workers of Europe.
The most institutions of the European Union are not chosen but installed. The only institution for which there are organised elections (and we don’t argue now if they are real democratic)is the European parliament. And that has just a consulting function.
« Yes but, the difference with other proposals of nationalisation are the decisive supplementary conditions », I can hear Joris saying..
So the workers has to continue the struggle for that « nationalisation under control of the European Union » until all conditions are fulfilled (control of the unions by the installing of the new management, etc….)
Joris wants to prove to be a real Marxist with « a nationalisation can stimulate the discussion about another view on the car industry that needs more then ever, planning, a stricter control on the capacity, the development of energy saving models and an alternative handling the transport problem in our society ».
Sorry for him! Now Joris is showing his LACK of Marxist view about the essential DIFFERENCES between an economy based on the capitalist production system and a socialist plan economy and why Marxists just are saying that the capitalist production system can have NO planning, but is producing in chaos and in an anarchist way. The capitalist production system is for example ht highest possible form of COMMODITY-production and is the socialist plan-economy the transformation to a production in function of NEEDS.
How can « the discussion be stimulated » parting from car assemblage? The production of cars is a typical « capitalist answer »to the need in the society for mobility; namely a safe, comforting and large car for al the persons who CAN PAY IT(and the more you can pay the more safety, comport, space, and faster)
But why then is not put on the agenda the « nationalisation under control of the European Union » of al the European transport companies (all the already PRIVATISED companies of all kind of public transport) to produce a « mobility-solution »that is NOT depending of the amount of a individual income?
But Peter Mertens says in KNACK nr 7: « that is not our program of demands today! »

GM-EuroCar, a « left » variation of a reformist plan
In fact Joris is producing a « left » variation of a reformist proposal to come to an agreement with a part of the bourgeoisie to instal a European public enterprise for the production of an European car.
The reformists want to advice the owners of GM to sell the European part to the European authorities « now it has still a certain value » and so the owners will get a still good price for it.
The European Union can now more be accused of giving a lot of money « to the support of a private company » because they will be the owner themselves.
The reformists are willingly to accept a far going corporatism. Perhaps in the form of « co-managing » as it exists in
Germany?
The European Union can then fully implement her policy of increasing the level of exploitation in « her own company ». So it is possible to produce a car at « a very competitive price »….. Maybe even the workers that will produce the GMEurocar can buy it themselves?
This plan the reformist have copied from Hitler with is plan to produce ….. The Volkswagen!
So the Plan Joris Van Gorp is just as Marxist and revolutionary as was the Plan Henri De Man (of the Belgian social-democratic party) in the thirties…
And Henri De Man propagated collaboration with the German occupation in 1940....What will be de evolution of Joris Van Gorp?
Allthough the socalled “marxist” plan of Joris is a collective discussed plan to which the different WPB-members working in GM-Antwerp wil have participated, It is a point of view of the whole PTB. I have to admitted that my analyse is a work of one individual and I am not organised in a “revolutionary” organisation that the WPB pretend to be.
But I think that I have a more real marxist approach. You can read it here.

The workers must not fight for “reforming” capitalism, but to beat it

Fighting to “save (our?)automotive production from the effects of overcapacity” will not “save (some of our) jobs” but destroy them, raise the level of exploitation and SHARPEN the crisis of overcapacity.

On this moment is the total production capacity in the world for cars: 75 million cars/year.
You can say, roughly, that each car-buyer or « car-consumer » will renew his car once in ten years. So you have a « purchasing powered demand of the market » of 750 million car-buyers. These 75O million « consumers » are mostly workers or worker families that can obtain enough income out their « selling of their workforce » (or the selling of the combined workforce of the family) to buy the goods and services that they need or want to acquire.
Probably have 5 billion people living on this planet a need or a wish to have the possibility to travel easy, safely once and a while more than, say, 100 km and to transport with them some personal goods.
When it is available, and when they have enough income for that, they can buy the service, also « produced« by capitalist enterprises: « public » transport.
But only 750 individuals (or families) have enough income out of their work to transform this need into a purchasing powered demand with which they can buy the by capitalist production-system proposed « solution »: the car.
A lot of those 750 million people or families had in fact already long time not enough PURCHASING POWER to buy, in our case, a car.

With other words, there was already long time a OVERCAPACITY compared with the purchasing powered demand of the market. But that crisis of overcapacity was shift to the future by giving the possibility to loan money of which was said: « you can pay this back in the future out of your INCREASED income » But the wages, or at least the purchasing power of them, DECREASED, and in a lot of places in the world the income out of wages DISAPPEARED.
It become clearer and cleared to the workers in the world that the capitalist production system ( the highest form of production of COMMODITIES, with commodities sold at their value to buyers with enough purchasing power) can not satisfy the NEEDS of a world population of 5 or 6 billion of which the majority are forced to sell their workforce to have an income.
This is not only the case of the NEED, MOBILITY but also of the needs, HOUSING, EATING and DRINKING, HEALTHCARE, SCHOOLING, WARMTH and LIGHTNING, (TELE-)COMMUNICATION. More and more workers (they speak about 20 to 30 million workers in the USA ,the top of imperialism!) have not enough income (out of their labour) to buy their daily FOOD (and that for their family). They have to go several time each weak to a public kitchen to get a meal.
The biggest part (and an increasing part) of humanity is not succeeding to get enough income to be able to BUY all necessary products and services to have a decent human living.

Also, already since the beginning of the eighties, the average wage(or salary) out of labour in the world is DECREASING and so the purchasing power of that income. And a global INCREASING of the prices is the same as a similar DECREASING of the wages.
And also since the beginning of the eighties there is a worldwide deterioration of al kinds and forms of social security systems and of al kind of systems to get an income when you are in the impossibility to work or to get work. All those systems were financed by putting indirect wage or collectively collected wages (all kind of taxes on wages or even all kind of corporate taxes) into a fund managed by the government. In fact cancelling all those kinds of taxes to finance those social funds is also form of DECREASE of the wages.
Where the purchasing powered demand decreased was the production-capacity increasing because the capitalist competition COMPEL to increase total production capacity above the total purchasing powered market demand.
The actual sharpening of the overcapacity crisis means ( for the capitalist monopolies) above all, a sharpening of the competition (that was already one of the main CAUSES of the overcapacity itself)

The shrinking market (because of the decreasing of the salaries of the workerd and the decreasing of the number of the workers that is capable to SELL their workforce and so have an income out of their labour) and the shrinking of the parts of the market that the different monopolies have, make that monopoly A goes into failure or STOPS producing or destroys his production capacity or let it disappear. For monopoly B it SEEMS that the market demand is still increasing because putting together his own parts of the market with those who were left by monopoly A. So monopoly B will again INCREASE his production capacity and can sell enough cars for example to realise an increased profit (Profit is that part of the realised surplus value of which the monopoly can dispose itself - that is not used for example to pay rent on loaned capital).
The unemployment increases and has a decreasing pressure on the salaries. This is an extra advantage for monopoly B: an increase of the level of exploitation and so of the surplus value and thus of the profit. (when all the production can be sold of course)
… but a lot of all the workers that are working in the whole production chain (of natural resources via production of parts to the assembling of the cars of monopoly B will not have enough salary to BUY one of the cars that they have produced collectively.
The sharpening of the competition ( by the crisis) makes the hunting on resources as cheap as possible fiercer, as the hunting on getting the control over the existing sources of resources ( against competitors), the hunting on the cheapest labour forces, the hunting on the biggest part of the market and the organising of repression and the employing of repression forces against each resistance or revolt against imperialist order and the compelling of the destroying of production capacity by the competitor. With other words, allowing to further existing of imperialism, and just when it is in crisis, leads to WAR.

The surviving monopolies are FORCED (by reason of the competition that will exist as long as imperialism will exist) even in the reality of overcapacity crisis to going on with increase their productivity.
Imperialism as highest possible stage of capitalism, means also the highest stage of the CHAOTIC and ANARCHISTIC character of the capitalist production system: the highest possibility to satisfy AL SOCIAL NEEDS in the world against the biggest possible poverty, outbursts of diseases, lack of enough food and drinking, housing, warmth, lightning and the highest lack of possibilities of mobility and the lack of a healthy, safe and clean lenvironment … together with the BIGGEST possible danger of the most devastating wars

There is no other outcome out of the crisis for the workers in the world, inside imperialism than only an increasing of poverty, hunger, not cured illnesses, homeless, wars…

A spontaneous struggle against closure, being fired and decrease of salaries or to save all workplaces will have this objectives as result (but even then only temporarily, partly and insufficiently) when the struggle (massively and violently) is menacing to develop in a struggle against the capitalist order itself.
These experiences in the class struggle are learning the workers by the ideological and political discussions INSIDE the working class that they have to unite in big mass-struggle-organisations that have as objective: the destroying of capitalism that, in its highest stage, imperialism, can no longer satisfy any social and material need in society. With a production system that is ENTIRELY owned and controlled by the class of capitalists and is based on production in function of a purchasing powered demand. At the same time it learns the workers that they have to build a production system controlled and owned by the organised working class in function of NEEDS. The ownership of the entire production system will be taken out of the hands of the capitalists by the struggle of the organised workers.

The PRICE of a product or service is determined by the VALUE of it: the necessary average time of labour for the production of it. Under capitalist production relations the SELLING of the product or service leads to the realising of the surplus value based on exploitation of the workforces.
Under communist production relations the VALUE of a product or service means just the registration of the labour (for example the level of intensity of the labour) used for the production of it or the used time of labour. For the worker that want to get himself a certain product it means that he has already paid for it by the registration of the time of his work.
The product or service will be conceived (or PLANNED) that it will satisfy a real NEED.
The taking of the ownership of the whole system of production by the organised working class, the transforming of the whole production system in function of the purchasing powered demand to that in function of needs is the PASSAGE to communism by the socialist revolution and socialism.

The experience of the class struggle is learning to the working class also that the struggle for working places, for salary or against closure and firing or even for « social plans » (in fact an alternative income for the forced unemployment) CAN NOT BE A struggle with these themes THEMSELVES as objective of the struggle. The realising of these objectives is by struggling against the basements of the capitalist order, and then « given » by the capitalists fearing further development of revolutionary struggle.
The experience of the class struggle will to clarify to the workers the misleading of reformists, « sold » union leaders (mostly not chosen by the workers themselves) and even « left » or self declared « communist » organisations who puts reforms as objective of the struggle.
Because, as is said, EVEN when these « reforms »-objectives are realised it means that the carry on of the struggle began to develop in the direction against the basements of capitalism itself.
Because only then the capitalist will agree (out of fear to lose the capitalist order) with « reforms » which mean a temporary decrease of their realised surplus value or profit.
Finally as long as the whole production system is in the hands of capitalists and as long as that ownerships gives them the power OVER the workers, all reforms will be annulled after some time and the level of exploitation will increase again.
These lessons out of experiences are leading to the necessity to direct EVERY struggle (spontaneously directed to a temporary lowering of the level of exploitation) to the destroying of capitalism itself. This struggle will however not develop this way in one time in one situation of struggle (it depends of the results of general increasing of the consciousness by the majority of the workers in struggle) But the direction in which each struggle has to be clarified and to be clear. This is the task of a real communist. And as much as possible vanguard workers will organise themselves therefore in a communist party.

We, European workers, have to FORCE a weakening of "Israel"

During the open war in Gaza and all the solidarity manifestations in Europe with the Palestinians, I tried to post my opinion (here below) on different progressive and left websites:

« We, the workers of Europa have to compel the stopping of all agreements Europe-Israël

Everywhere in Europe in manifestations people shouted: « stop all agreements between Europe and Israël », or « stop the weapon-deliveries out of Europe to Israël »
We, the workers of Europe have to compel this.
The European Union, the instrument of the European monopolies is deteriorating in whole Europe the work- and living conditions of the workers. The access to social compensations, a living worth pension, good healthcare, all payed with taxes on profits, corporate taxes, social contributions on salaries is more and more decreasing just like all those « taxes » for enterprises.
The effects of the crises for the monopolies are softened by all kinds of « subsidies » and are put on the shoulders of the workers in the form of closures and dismissals.

Where the European workers have to unite to fight against this, they have to do this also to compel Europe (and as well the European institutions as well as the European monopolies) to breach all agreements and all contracts with Israël and Israëlian enterprises. While Europe sees Israël, perhaps not official but OBJECTIVELY as member state, the struggle against the war of Israël becomes the responsibility of the working class of that same European Union.
When the position of Israël is WEAKENING; as the tanks are no longer able to move by lack of fuel and spare parts, when the planes can no longer fly to spread death and terror, when the Israeli economy can no longer finance the war, it STRENGTHENS at least the negotiating position of the Palestinians.
The support of the own Israëli population to the war will dry out when instead advantages, more and more sacrifices are needed (shortages of all kinds of consumer products, a significant rise of the prices of consumer products, more and more taxes, economies on all social compensations …)

The union delegation in each factory of a European monopoly can get relatively easy the concrete evidences of contracts and deliveries to Israel.
All those concrete evidences of contracts, all those concrete evidences of agreements of the European Union with Israel should be arguments of the unifying of the workers of Europe to one European movement of strikes, against all political, economical, technological and financial ties with Israel.

All the arguments of respective managers or direction of enterprises (mostly parts of an international monopoly) like: « But when we have not those contracts, the completion will have them. This means a shrinking of the turnover and so their will be closures and dismissals » can easily be answered.

« Closures and dismissals and putting the load of the overcapacity crisis on the workers was already the subject of our struggle. The struggle to put the effects of the crisis on those who are really guilty, is the same struggle to put the cost of a total embargo against Israel on those who are guilty of making Israel strong. »

This implicates that the unity movement out of the different member states (where different unions out of those member states have joined that movement) take contact over the borders of the member states and work effectively on one unified workers-movement of struggle.
This implicates also that al those organisations in the different member states of Europe, calling themselves « vanguard organisations of the working class » in their own memeberstate, PROVE that they are really « vanguard » taking the initiative of building a « European vanguard organisation of the European working class »

The European unified movement of struggle of the European workers will give perspective to, and taking the concerns serious, of those workers in Europe who because of their (north African and Middle East) origins, are very touched by the suffering of the Palestine people.

The young intellectuals, still studying, can give contributions by an investigation of the connections and cooperation in technology and research that could exist between their university and Israel. They could start an European movement of struggle of European students against al those bounds, connections and contacts of those scientific institutions (and their spin-off enterprises) with Israel.
The organisation of youth and students of those « vanguard organisations of the workers » should work on a unifying of the struggle of the European youth and students with the European movement of struggle of the European workers. So can the anger and will to fight of many young people ( a lot of them feeling cultural connected with the Palestinians) can be directed to those forces who are REALLY guilty of the strengthening of Israel: the European monopolies and the institutions of the European Union. »

Israel is considered as a part of the European Union

Now the open war of Israel against Gaza seemed finished, Europe will « free some funds » to give « humanitarian assistance » to the Palestinian people in Gaza.
But Europe declared that there will not free any funds for the reconstruction in Gaza « as long as Hamas is the leading force in Gaza ».
So IN FACT, Europe agrees with the « official » goals of the war of Israel in Gaza: destroying Hamas.
Of course Europe has to protest a little against « to big difference of the violence of Israel against civilians » in comparison with the « acts of violence » of Hamas against « Israelian civilians ». But Europe will not allow any OFFICIAL conviction of Israel for « crimes of war » or « ethnic cleansing ».
The results of the - also by Europe promoted and « controlled » - FREE and DEMOCRATIC elections are by Europe (and Israel) just « respected » as they bring to power imperialist friendly forces that accept the existence of the colonialist Zionist entity « Israel ».
This proves for me that my standpoint here above was (and is still) correct!

Fighting opportunism to beat revisionism 4

(to "fighting opportunism to beat revisionism 1")
In the following text (out of « the Party of the Revolution », - you can read a updated translation here - the documents of the 5^th Congress of the WPB in 1995),there is a contradiction between the feeling of reassurance of the political unity of the party and the concern of the lack of political and ideological level of the cadres (why only the cadres, what about the whole of the militants of the party?).
First the parts with the (IDEALIST) feeling of reassurance of « the political unity » of the WPB:

« In the WPB there is a big consensus about decisive political questions that lead by a lot of organisations to break up. These consensus is the result of large debates ; the results are fixed in final documents. Revolutionary moral; Party and Front; party conception; the crisis in the revolutionary movement in Western Europe are from 1983. The last document knows a sequel in the struggle against the « six dissidents » in 1990. This resulted in the book « From Tien An Men to Timisoara ».
The analyse of the degeneration of the Soviet Union is written in « USSR, the velvet contra revolution ». The defence of the great revolutionary period in the Soviet Union forms the subject of « Another view on Stalin ». The analyse of capitalism and the syndicalism strategy were developed in « the General Society » and « Time is on our side ». The principles of the national democratic revolution in the Third World are in the book « Ten years revolution in Congo ».The analysis of the actual national and international situation one can find in the speeches of the First of May of 1989-1995. The whole party and the group of cadres in particular, stayed one, and the Marxist Leninist points of view were strengthened in the fierce anti communist campaign of 1989-1992. »

And:

«The WPB has come strengthened out of the anticommunist rollercoaster of 1989-1991. How she has resisted her? How she has strengthened her revolutionary unity and was possible to increase the number of militants.? In the book « Of Tien An Men to Timisoara »one can find the answers on these questions. (….)
Thanks of these achievements and successes we can today the accent on certain negative aspects in our work to stimulate the vigilance of all our cadres and members. The big unity and firmness of our party permit us to concentrate more energy on the research of certain weaknesses and shortages. We mobilise our forces to foresee and prevent the crises that could be happen in the future.
The leadership has to judge the mistakes and weaknesses always with the most serious strictness; and that she is doing. Normally these political debates has to be restricted to the leading organs only. The conclusions out of this struggle would than be used for the education and the unifying of the whole party.
But the leadership has judged in the actual circumstances it opportune to take all the cadres and members into the debate, and therefore calling together a Congress. (…) »

In an not very sharp way the text says « These consensus is the result of large debates ; the results are fixed in final documents… ». It is a very misty formulation, because mostly of these « documents » are in fact voted Congress-documents, so documents that has to be assimilated by every member and that only can be changed by another Congress:
Second congress in 1983: Revolutionary moral; Party and Front; party conception; the crisis in the revolutionary movement in Western Europe are from 1983.
Third congress round 1987-1988:« Time is on our side »
Fourth Congress in 1992:« USSR, the velvet contra revolution »

It is remarkable that nothing is said about the « consensus » round the document of the First Congress in 1979: the fundamental elaborated PROGRAM and STATUTES of the WPB.
Perhaps this program has to be revised? Then what is the revised program of the WPB? Nothing is mentioned about the contents of the PROGRAM of the WPB. And the Statutes were in 1979 conform with the Leninist party conceptions. Are the principles of membership not changed? But than the statutes have to bee discussed. And when there are mistakes in the program of 1979 - that has to be corrected by a new congress!- was it then because there was applied OPPORTUNIST analysis instead of MARXIST analysis? What could be said in 1995 on the 5^th congress, for the sake of renewing « consensus » and unity in the party? In a later analyse I will come back on the document of the first congress of the WPB in 1979 which was (an is still?) the fundamental concrete revolutionary program of the WPB, still not refuted and changed by any congress….

In fact one could say that IF the program has to be revised, and IF there is yet no Congress that can decide on this, a temporary « update » has been made by Ludo Martens as president of the WPB taking his responsibility, in: « The defence of the great revolutionary period in the Soviet Union forms the subject of ’ Another view on Stalin ‘. … The principles of the national democratic revolution in the Third World are in the book ’ Ten years revolution in Congo ‘.The analysis of the actual national and international situation one can find in the speeches of the First of May of 1989-1995. »

This « consensus » is in fact idealism, so opportunism, as the « consensus » declared on the 5^th congress in 1995 about for example « Party and Front »(you can read here a part of this document) is CONTRADICTING the « consensus » on THAT SAME congress, about for example « USSR- the velvet contra revolution ».(you can read here a part of this document). So while there is no further précising, you can say that in 1995 there were a lot or militants who still agreed with the political line (and agreed with the Marxist character of the analyse where this was based on) of the second congress, and a lot of militants agreed with the political line of the fourth congress (that was correcting the line AND the analysis -on certain specific points - of the second congress) But where was done the CORRECT applying of Marxism? And where was applied opportunism? And what was the concrete content of that opportunism? And where was the accepting by the majority of the delegates of the 5^th congress of all this? When I would be forced on that 5^th congress to study and to vote consciously about all this, perhaps I would have noticed (and very much comrades with me) that I was applying a dogmatic form of Marxism.
It is clear, at least for me NOW, that there was some dogmatism in the analysis of the international situation in 1983, that was corrected by the fourth congress. This had to be formulated in the congress documents of the 5^th congress, to unify the party, not on a misty « consensus », but on a concrete analysis of the actual world (out of which would be developed the concrete tasks for the communists organised in the communist party)
This opportunism,(dogmatic analysing, misty very general statements) has been used to introduce IN the documents of the 5^th congress (and has been accepted by a majority, included me!) some real revisionist analyse. A good study of former congress documents (for example « Party and Front »form the second congress in 1983 ) could have detected revisionist pseudo-Marxist analyse that led to decisive conclusions about party working, building the party organisation, conditions for new membership, tasks for the party militants in their all day political work, that are in contradiction with conclusions in « Party and Front ». I will come back on this with concrete proofs.

The feeling of reassurance speaking out of the texts above, contradicts with the feeling of concern and worry that speaks out of other parts out of the SAME TEXT (in the SAME chapter):

« As economic and political system capitalism can offer to mankind no humane future…
(…) Only the uprising of the people and the socialist revolution can make an end to this barbaric system. In that revolution the communist party as a subjective factor, with her political line and her organisational power, plays the most important role. (…)
Only Marxism Leninism offers a solution with socialism and communism. (…)
To put the cadres of the communist party in the possibility to pick up the tasks of each new historic period seriously, they have to work on a continuous transformation of their world conception.
Since 1945 Belgium knows a period where bourgeois democracy is relative stabile. The danger exist that the attitude and ideas stay marked by this period.
The elimination of what was left of socialism in the USSR was the start of a reactionary period in the whole world. Wars of aggression and inter imperialist wars break out. More fascist tendencies are a general phenomena in the actual imperialist world.
Our ideas, our policy and our conceptions about organisation have to adapt to this new reality. The attitude of the cadres and their working style has to change radically. Instead of having big ambitions and to act conform with it, are some of them sticking in the « routine » of the quiet years.
They are working as if they « have all the time of the world ». Formal they agree with the analysis of becoming sharper of the contradictions on national and international level.
But it result not in bigger ambitions to bring the party forward, by working on strategic conclusions and to begin to work in a firm manner on new domains.
If the party succeeds to bring her tasks to a good ending, depends for a big part of the Marxist Leninist quality of the leadership, of the revolutionary spirit of the leading cadres, their sense of responsibility, their ties with the party base and the masses, their revolutionary discipline, their sense of making conclusions, their sense or initiative and their revolutionary creativity.
The main mission of the 5^th congress of the Workers Party of Belgium, was to ameliorate the working of the leadership of the party.(…)
It would be dangerous to underestimate the problems, with the excuse that we resist firmly against the bourgeois offensive. The fundamental analyses, of which the essential statements are not contested, are made by a very little number of cadres. The unity round the line, is sometimes formal and the mentioned documents are not always good assimilated. At the same moment one can notice in certain sectors a slow, a almost unnoticeable, ideological and political deterioration.
In 1989-1990 we have been through a renewed version of the liquidation-movement of the beginning of 1980. But now it is developing with the background of a more fierce anticommunist offensive on world level, a rollercoaster of revisionist statements inside the international communist movement and a alarming development of right tendencies in our party.
Some cadres of the Central Committee of 1987-1990 have capitulated and have left the leadership. In the worst case we had to do with a comrade who « discovered » in 1989 that he agreed with the most right statements of the revisionists and the social democrats against Stalin, against the Khmers Rouges, against the oppression of the contra- revolutionary revolt in Beijing, against the proletarian dictatorship - in favour of Krutchov, in favour of the Communist Party of Belgium, in favour of the peaceful transition to socialism… after fifteen years of militancy we had to notice that his transformation of world conception was absolute zero. Three cadres, who would normally enter the Central Committee in 1991, were refused because they respected not the financial norms for higher cadres.
Some sectors of the party were led in a routine way, without strong revolutionary spirit. The cadres and members are not consequently educated in Marxism Leninism, get no deep going critics on their work, nor help to overcome their weaknesses. All that hold risks for the future. When it begin to burn in those sectors, cadres from elsewhere have to come to help extinguish. .
The contra revolution in Eastern Europe, the shifts in China, prove that everybody have to do big efforts, when they want to know and to overcome the different revisionist and sectarian-dogmatic streaming and to develop Marxism Leninism. The ideological evolution proves this also.
The party states form the beginning that she bases al her activities on the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao Zedong. But in the reality very few cadres are doing the effort to know the totality of all those works and to apply them in a lively manner in the all day party work.
A lot of ideological and political principles were assimilated in the years 1968-1979: basing oneself on the practice and the work among the masses, to chose the leading cadres, to form them and to judge them; the mass line, democratic centralism, apply the Leninist discipline; following united front policy, etc… These principles were never doubted, but get slowly out of practice.
During the debates in 1989-1990 we could notice that behind the façade of ideological unity developed almost unnoticeable, numerous anti-Leninist, petty bourgeois conceptions.
We can not say that the Marxist Leninist nature and orientation of our party is secured firmly. (…..)
We should not underestimate the tendencies to liberalism, laziness and liquidationism under the cadres as is describe in the book « Of Tien An Men to Timisoara »
In the party exists a potential streaming of liquidationism that has nested itself in the party unnoticed and sneaky. She can become active again, when there will be serious problems.
9. Four fights we have to fight
9.1. Increasing the sense of responsibility of the leading cadres (…)
9.2. Putting political problems in the centre and struggle against opportunism ….)
9.3. Fight bureaucratic working, paper inflation and routine (….)
9.4. Fight individualism and strengthen control (….)
10. Rectifying and purifying(…) »

But in this revolutionary concern and worry to save the revolutionary character of the WPB and to unify the whole party on this, there was not enough awareness for some forms of opportunist way of applying Marxism. It is this unawareness of certain forms of opportunism that revisionism could enter the WPB.
This you can notice in other parts of « Party of the revolution ».
I will proof this in a next article.