Fighting opportunism to beat revisionism 3

Beating revisionism means continuously fighting opportunism
The analyse that Ludo Martens wrote about the developments of revisionism in the USSR, was the main text, that was to be discussed, to be amended and to be voted on the Fourth Congress of the WPB in 1992.
The original point of view that existed in the party about Kroutchov, the period of Breznjev, the coming of Gorbatjov, the fall of socialism in the USSR and the very superficial analyses that a lot of cadres made, were the main reasons for Ludo Martens, as leading president of the WPB, to make that analyse and to insist of having a Congress of the WPB, with this analyse as main document. The result of that fourth congress was the book « USSR, velvet contra revolution »
After the fourth Congress, Ludo Martens noted no significant progress in the revolutionary spirit of a lot of cadres. At the same time, and allowed by the party, he was spending a lot of time and energy with his political and ideological help to the possible revolution in the former Belgian colony, Congo.
Beside himself there were no very much cadres who had the political and ideological capacities to lead the party in at least a collective leadership. Instead of that there were some cadres who capitulated.
Therefore one can say without exaggeration say that Ludo Martens was the most important force to organise the Fifth Congress of the WPB in 1995.
Beside himself, different cadres had to write a project text, or a project resolution that would be proposed to, discussed on, amended and voted on that congress.
After that congress, out of all the voted congress documents, a book was edited and published: « Party of the Revolution ». (you can read here in a regularly updated file the progress of a translation in English of at least the most significant parts.

I was delegate on that Congress and I had to study on some texts (there were different workgroups round different proposed texts) the most important amendments on a specific text was made in the workgroup round that text. But all texts could be studied by all the delegates. And every delegate could make an amendment of every text. The amendments were grouped and than in the plenum, every text with his amendments was voted. And always someone could defend the amendment and someone could attack the same amendment.
But because the existing lack of good knowledge of Marxism, the existing of important forms of political and ideological opportunism (that were in fact the REASONS to ORGANISE that congress!)still present on the congress itself, those forms of opportunism were not totally beaten in the congress documents themselves. Therefore you can notice in the book « Party of the revolution » the development of a revolutionary line, some opportunism included IN that revolutionary line, some opportunist chapters and even development of a revisionist line.
You can discover point of views in that same book that in fact CONTRADICT each other….
I have to make my own self critic that I studied Marxism in a dogmatic way on that moment, so I could not notice not on the moment of the Fifth Congress itself, these contradictions.
Now, in 2008, I have tot conclude that apparently there was, and is a strong form of opportunist way of use of Marxism by the majority of the militants of the WPB. That is only reason that I can think of that comrades that become once member of the WPB because they discovered Marxism as analysing method to develop a strategy to revolution and the installing of socialism and because they want to become part of the working class to organise the vanguard to lead the working class to revolution…. but developed an opportunist (dogmatic) form of Marxism and so they were not aware of the development of revisionism in the party, becoming the leading line in 2004. In fact the same comrades agreed on the 8^th Congress that the WPB became a reformist party, with a reformist line. That same reformist line where those same comrades always fought against in the early years of the WPB! You can read here some reactions of comrades that I knew in the party and that knew me as well. I will discuss those reactions while analyzing “Party of the Revolution”.
Here you can read the chronology of the analyse of the development of revisionism that I already wrote (in English, because in Dutch I wrote already more).
In the next article I will begin with the analyse of “Party of the revolution”.