DECLARATION OF THE
REVOLUTIONARY INTERNATIONALIST
MOVEMENT
Adopted by the
delegates and observers at the Second International
Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations which
formed the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement
Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations which
formed the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement
Part 2
- The USSR and the Comintern
- Mao Tsetung, the Cultural Revolution and the
Marxist-Leninist Movement
- The Tasks of Revolutionary Communists
The USSR and the Comintern
The October
Revolution in Russia
and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat opened a new stage
in the history of the international working class movement. The October
Revolution was the living confirmation of Lenin’s vital development of the
Marxist theory of the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the
proletariat. For the first time in history the working class succeeded in smashing
the old state apparatus, establishing its own rule, beating back the attempts
of the exploiters to strangle the socialist regime in its infancy and creating
the political conditions necessary for the establishment of a new, socialist,
economic order. In this process the central role of a vanguard political party
of a new type, the Leninist party, was demonstrated.
The
international impact of the Russian Revolution, coming especially as it did in
the course of the world conjuncture marked by the First World War and the
upsurge of revolutionary activity that accompanied it, was immense. From the
beginning the leaders and class conscious workers in the new socialist state
viewed the success of the revolution there not as an end in itself but as the
first major breakthrough in the worldwide struggle to defeat imperialism,
uproot exploitation and establish communism throughout the world. In the wake
of the Russian Revolution a new, Communist, International was formed on the
basis of assimilating the vital lessons of the Bolshevik revolution and in
rupturing with the reformism and social democracy that had poisoned and
eventually characterised the great majority of socialist parties making up the
Second International. The Russian Revolution and the Comintern in connection
with the objective developments brought about by World War I transformed the
struggle for socialism and communism from an essentially European phenomenon
into a truly worldwide struggle for the first time in history.
Lenin and
Stalin developed the proletarian line on the national and colonial question, stressing
the importance of the revolutions in oppressed countries in the overall process
of the world proletarian revolution and arguing against those such as Trotsky
who held that the revolution in these countries was dependent on the victory of
the proletariat in the imperialist countries and denied the possibility of the
proletariat carrying out a socialist revolution on the basis of having led the
first, bourgeois democratic stage of the revolution in these types of
countries.
The period
that followed the Russian Revolution was marked by worldwide revolutionary ferment
and attempts at establishing working class political power in a number of countries.
Despite the unbending assistance the newly established USSR gave and
the political attention by Lenin to the revolutionary movement worldwide, the
temporary resolution of the crisis that World War I concentrated and the
remaining strength of the imperialist powers as well as the weaknesses of the
revolutionary working class movement led to the defeat of the revolution
outside the borders of the USSR.
Lenin and his successor Stalin were faced with the necessity of safeguarding
the gains of the revolution in the USSR
and carrying through the establishment of a socialist economic system in the Soviet Union alone. Following Lenin’s death an important ideological
and political struggle was waged by Stalin against the Trotskyites and others who
claimed that the low level of the productive forces in the USSR, the existence of an immense peasantry and
the Ussr’s
international isolation made it impossible to carry out the construction of
socialism. This erroneous, capitulationist viewpoint was refuted both theoretically
and, more importantly, in practice as tens of millions of workers and peasants
went into battle to uproot the old capitalist system, to collectivise
agriculture and create a new economic system no longer based on the
exploitation of man by man.
These
soul-stirring battles and the important victories won in them greatly spread
the influence of Marxism-Leninism and increased the prestige of the USSR
throughout the world. The class conscious workers and oppressed peoples
correctly considered the socialist USSR as their own, rejoiced in the
victories won by the Soviet working class and came to its defence against the
menaces and attacks of the imperialists.
Nevertheless
it can be seen in retrospect that the progress of the socialist revolution in
the USSR,
even in the period of the great socialist transformations in the late 1920s end
‘30s, was marked by serious weaknesses and shortcomings. Some of these
weaknesses are to be explained by the lack of previous historical experience of
the dictatorship of the proletariat [outside of the short-lived Paris Commune)
and by the severe imperialist blockade and aggression aimed at the USSR.
These problems were increased and supplemented, however, by some important
theoretical and political errors. Mao Tsetung, while upholding Stalin from the
slanders of Khrushchev, made serious and correct criticisms of these errors:
Mao explained the ideological basis for Stalin’s errors: “Stalin had a fair
amount of metaphysics in him and he taught many people to follow metaphysics”, “Stalin
failed to see the connection between the struggle of opposites and the unity of
opposites. Some people in the Soviet Union are
so metaphysical and rigid in their thinking that they think a thing has to be
either one or the other, refusing to recognise the unity of opposites. Hence, political
mistakes are made.” Stalin’s most fundamental error was to fail to thoroughly
apply dialectics in all spheres and thus draw serious wrong conclusions
concerning the nature of the class struggle under socialism and the means to
prevent capitalist restoration. While waging a fierce struggle against the old exploiting
classes, Stalin denied in theory the emergence of a new bourgeoisie from within
the socialist society itself, reflected and concentrated by the revisionists
within the ruling communist party, hence his erroneous claim that “antagonistic
class contradictions” had been eliminated in the Soviet
Union as a result of the basic establishment of socialist
ownership in industry and agriculture. Similarly a failure to thoroughly apply
dialectics to the analysis of socialist society led the Soviet leadership to conclude
that there was no longer a contradiction between the productive forces and the relations
of production under socialism and to neglect to pay adequate attention to carrying
out the revolution in the superstructure and continuing to revolutionise the relations
of production even after the establishment, in the main, of the socialist ownership
system.
This
incorrect understanding of the nature of socialist society also contributed to
Stalin’s failure to adequately distinguish the contradictions between the
people and the enemy and the contradictions among the people themselves. This
in turn contributed to a marked tendency to resort to bureaucratic methods of
handling these contradictions and gave more openings to the enemy.
In the
period following the death of Lenin, Stalin led the Communist International
which continued to play an important role in advancing the world revolution and
developing and consolidating the newly formed Communist Parties.
In 1935 an
extremely important Congress of the Communist International was held in the midst
of a severe world economic crisis, the growing threat of a new world war and imperialist
attacks on the Soviet Union, the coming to power of fascism in Germany and the
smashing of the German Communist Party, and the establishment of fascism or menace
of the same in a number of other countries. It was necessary and correct for
the Communist International to try to develop a tactical line concerning all of
these questions.
Because the
Seventh Congress of the Comintern has had such a deep influence on the history
of the international movement it is necessary to make a sober and scientific evaluation
of the Report of the Congress in the light of the existing historical
conditions at the time. In particular the reasons for the defeat of the German
Communist Party must be deeply studied. Nevertheless certain conclusions can be
drawn now, and must be in light of the present tasks of today’s Marxist-Leninists
and three clear deviations must be identified.
First the
distinction between fascism and bourgeois democracy in the imperialist countries,
while certainly of real importance for the Communist Parties, was treated in a way
that tended to make an absolute of the difference between these two forms of bourgeois
dictatorship and also to make a strategic stage of the struggle against
fascism. Secondly, a thesis was developed, which held that the growing
immiseration of the proletariat would create in the advanced countries the
material basis for healing the split in the working class and its consequent
polarisation that Lenin had so powerfully analysed in his works on imperialism
and the collapse of the Second International. While it is certainly true that
the depth of the crisis undermined the social base of the labour aristocracy in
the advanced capitalist countries and led to real possibilities that the Communist
Parties needed to make use of to unite with large sections of the workers previously
under the hegemony of the Social Democrats, it was not correct to believe that in
any kind of a strategic sense the split in the working class could be healed.
Thirdly, when fascism was defined as the regime of the most reactionary section
of the monopoly bourgeoisie in the imperialist countries, this left the door
open to the dangerous, reformist and pacifist tendency to see a section of the
monopoly bourgeoisie as progressive.
While it is
necessary to sum up these errors and to learn from them it is just as necessary
to recognise the Communist International, including in this period, as part of
the heritage of the revolutionary struggle for communism and to beat back
liquidationist and Trotskyite attempts to seize upon real errors to draw
reactionary conclusions. Even during this period the Communist International
mobilised millions of workers against class enemies and led heroic struggles
against reaction such as the organising of the International Brigades to fight
against fascism in Spain
in which many of the best sons and daughters of the working class shed their
blood in an inspiring example of internationalism.
The
Communist International also gave, correctly, great emphasis to the defence of
the Soviet Union, the land of socialism. But
when the Soviet Union made certain compromises
with different imperialist countries, the leaders of the Comintern more often than
not failed to understand the critical point that Mao Tsetung was to sum up in
1946 (in relation to the compromises then being made between the USSR and the
United States, Britain and France): “Such
compromise does not require the people in the countries of the capitalist world
to follow suit and make compromises at home.” Furthermore, such compromises
must take into account, first and foremost, the overall development of the
world revolutionary movement in which, of course, the defence of socialist
states plays an important role.
In
circumstances of imperialist encirclement of (a) socialist state(s) defending
these revolutionary conquests is a very important task for the international
proletariat. It will also be necessary for socialist states to carry out a
diplomatic struggle and at times to enter into different types of agreements
with one or another imperialist power. But the defence of socialist states must
always be subordinate to the overall progress of the world revolution and must
never been seen as the equivalent (and certainly not the substitute) for the international
struggle of the proletariat. In certain situations the defence of a socialist
country can be principal, but this is so precisely because its defence is
decisive for the advance of the world revolution.
It is
necessary to sum up the experiences of the international communist movement during
the period around the Second World War in the light of these lessons. World War Il
cannot be considered a mere repetition of World War I, for, even if the same murderous
logic of the capitalist system was responsible for it, it was a complex combination
of contradictions. At its beginning in 1939 it was, as Mao then pointed out “unjust,
predatory and imperialist in character. “ But a major change with global implications
took place when Hitler’s Germany
turned his troops on the Soviet Union. This
just war on the part of the Soviet Union drew
the support and sympathy of the working class and oppressed peoples the world
over who were greatly inspired by the heroic resistance of the Red Army and the
Soviet working class and people. This was no mere sympathy for a victim of
aggression but the profound conviction that the defence of the Soviet Union was also the defence of the socialist base
area of the world revolution. Similarly the war waged by the Chinese people
under the leadership of the Communist Party of China against Japanese aggression
also developed and was most definitely a just war and a component part of the
world proletarian revolution.
Particularly
with the entry of the Soviet Union into the
war it took on a more complex character. It became a combination of four
component parts: the war between socialism and imperialism; the war between the
imperialist blocs; the wars of the oppressed people against imperialism; and
the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, which in some
countries developed to the level of armed struggle. These differing aspects led
on the one hand to the growth of socialist forces, the defeat of the fascist
imperialist powers, the weakening of imperialism and the quickening tempo of the
national liberation struggles. On the other hand they led to a recasting of the
imperialist division of the world with the US assuming the role of chief
bandit among the imperialists.
There were
great revolutionary achievements in the course of World War II; at the same time
it is impossible not to see serious errors and begin the collective process of
deeply summing them up so as to be better prepared for coming storms. In
particular we can note the error of eclectically combining the above mentioned
contradictions. In practical political terms, the diplomatic struggle and
international agreements of the Soviet Union became
increasingly confounded with the activities of the Communist Parties making up the
Comintern. This problem also contributed to strong tendencies to portray the
non- fascist powers as something other than what they truly were -imperialists
who would have to be overthrown. In the European countries occupied by German
fascist troops it was not incorrect for the Communist Parties to take tactical
advantage of national sentiments from the standpoint of mobilising the masses,
but errors were made due to raising such tactical measures to the level of
strategy. Liberation struggles in colonies under the domination of the allied
imperialist powers were also held back due to such erroneous views.
While
cherishing and upholding the monumental revolutionary struggles and victories that
took place in this important period and the years immediately following, today’s
Marxist-Leninists will have to deepen their understanding of these errors and
their basis. The socialist camp that emerged from the Second World War was
never solid. Little revolutionary transformation was carried out in most of the
Eastern European Peoples’ Democracies. In the Soviet Union
itself powerful revisionist forces unleashed going into, in the course of, and
in the aftermath of the Second World War grew in strength and influence. In
1956, following the death of Stalin, these revisionist forces led by Khrushchev
succeeded in capturing political power, attacked Marxism-Leninism on all fronts
and restored capitalism in that country.
The coup d’état
of Khrushchev and the revisionists in the Soviet Union
was also, it is clear now, the coup de grace to the communist movement as it
had previously existed. The widespread cancer of revisionism had already consumed
many (including some of the most influential) parties that had made up the
Comintern. In many others only the thinnest veneer covered parties that were
fast degenerating to positions of modern revisionism while the revolutionary
elements were being suffocated. In the Soviet Union
itself after Sta1in’s death the genuine Marxist-Leninists and the Soviet
proletariat, weakened by the war and disarmed by serious political and
ideological errors, proved incapable of mounting any serious riposte to the
revisionist betrayers.
Mao Tsetung, the Cultural Revolution and the
Marxist-Leninist Movement
Beginning
immediately after the coup d’état of Khrushchev, Mao Tsetung and the Marxist-Leninists
in the Chinese Communist Party began to analyse the developments in the Soviet Union and in the international communist movement
and to struggle against modem revisionism. In 1963 the publication of A
Proposal Concerning the General Line of the International Communist Movement
(the 25-point letter) was an all-round and public condemnation of revisionism
and a call to the genuine Marxist-Leninists of all countries. The contemporary
Marxist-Leninist movement has as its origin this historic appeal and the
polemics that accompanied it.
In the Proposal and the polemics Mao and the
Chinese Communist Party correctly
- upheld the Leninist position on the dictatorship of the proletariat and refuted the revisionist theory of “state of the whole people”;
- upheld the necessity of armed revolution and opposed the strategy of a “peaceful transition to socialism”;
- supported and encouraged the development of the national wars of liberation of the oppressed peoples; exposing the sham independence of “neo-colonialism” and refuting the revisionist position that the wars of liberation should be avoided because they endanger “world peace”;
- made an overall positive evaluation of Stalin and the experience of construction of socialism in the USSR and refuted the slanders directed against Stalin of being a “butcher” and a “tyrant”, while making some important criticisms of Stalin’s errors;
- opposed the efforts of Khrushchev to impose a revisionist line on other parties as well as criticising Thorez, Togliatti, Tito and other modern revisionists;
- put forward in an embryonic form the thesis Mao Tsetung was developing concerning the class nature of socialism and carrying through the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat;
- called for a thorough study of the historical experience of the international communist movement and the roots of revisionism.
These
points, as well as others contained in the Proposal and the polemics were and remain
vital elements to distinguish Marxism-Leninism from revisionism. Through these polemics
Mao and the Chinese Communist Party encouraged the Marxist-Leninists to split
from the revisionists and form new proletarian revolutionary parties. The
polemics represented a radical rupture with modern revisionism and a sufficient
basis for the Marxist-Leninists to go forward into battle. Yet, on a number of
questions, the criticism of revisionism was not thorough enough and some
erroneous views were incorporated even while criticising others. Exactly
because of the important role these polemics and Mao and the Chinese Communist
Party played in giving birth to a new Marxist-Leninist movement it is correct
and necessary to consider the secondary, negative aspect in the polemics and in
the struggle waged by the Communist Party of China in the international communist
movement.
In relation
to the imperialist countries, the Proposal put forward the view that “In the capitalist
countries which US imperialism controls or is trying to control, the working class
and the people should direct their attacks mainly against US imperialism, but
also against their own monopoly capitalists and other reactionary forces who
are betraying the national interests.” This view, which seriously affected the
development of the Marxist- Leninist movement in these types of countries,
obscures the fact that in imperialist countries the “national interests” are
imperialist interests and are not betrayed, but on the contrary defended, by
the ruling monopoly capitalist class despite whatever alliances it may make
with other imperialist powers and despite the inevitably unequal nature of such
an alliance. The proletariat of these countries is thus encouraged to strive to
outbid the imperialist bourgeoisie as the best defenders of its own interests.
This view had a long history in the international communist movement and should
be broken with.
While the
CPC paid great attention to the development of Marxist-Leninist parties in opposition
to the revisionists they did not find the necessary forms and ways to develop the
international unity of the communists. Despite contributions to the ideological
and political unity this was not reflected by efforts to build organisational
unity on a world scale. The CPC had an exaggerated understanding of the
negative aspects of the Comintern, mainly those caused by over-centralisation,
which led to crushing the initiative and independence of constituent communist
parties. While the CPC correctly criticised the concept of Father party,
pointed out its harmful influence within the international communist movement,
and stressed the principles of fraternal relations between parties, the lack of
an organised forum for debating views and achieving a common viewpoint did not
help resolve this problem but in fact exacerbated it. If the theoretical
struggle against modern revisionism played a vital role in the rebuilding of a
Marxist-Leninist movement it was especially the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution,
an unprecedented new form of struggle, itself in large part a fruit of this combat
against modern revisionism, that gave rise to a whole new generation of
Marxist- Leninists. The tens of millions of workers, peasants and revolutionary
youth who went into battle to overthrow the capitalist roaders entrenched in
the party and state apparatus and to further revolutionise society struck a
vibrant chord among millions of people across the world who were rising up as
part of the revolutionary upsurge that swept the world in the 1960s and early
1970s.
The
Cultural Revolution represents the most advanced experience of the proletarian dictatorship
and the revolutionising of society. For the first time the workers and other revolutionary
elements were armed with a clear understanding of the nature of the class struggle
under socialism; of the necessity to rise up and overthrow the capitalist
roaders who would inevitably emerge from within the socialist society and which
are especially concentrated in the leadership of the party itself and to
struggle to further advance the socialist transformation and thus dig away at
the soil which engenders these capitalist elements. Great victories were won in
the course of the Cultural Revolution which prevented the revisionist
restoration in China
for a decade and led to great socialist transformations in education,
literature and art, scientific research and other elements of the
superstructure. Millions of workers and other revolutionaries greatly deepened
their class consciousness and mastery of Marxism-Leninism in the course of
fierce ideological and political struggle and their capacity to wield political
power was further increased. The Cultural Revolution was waged as part of the
international struggle of the proletariat and was a training ground in
proletarian internationalism, manifested not only by the support given to
revolutionary struggles throughout the world but also by the real sacrifices
made by the Chinese people to render this support. Revolutionary leaders emerged
such as Chiang Ching and Chang Chun-chiao, who stood alongside and led the masses
into battle against the revisionists and who continued to defend Marxism-
Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought in the face of bitter defeat.
Lenin said,
“Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of class struggle to the recognition
of the dictatorship of the proletariat”. In the light of the invaluable lessons
and advances achieved through the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution led by
Mao Tsetung, this criterion put forward by Lenin has been further sharpened.
Now it can be stated that only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of
class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat and to
the recognition of the objective existence of classes, antagonistic class
contradictions and of the continuation of the class struggle under the
dictatorship of the proletariat throughout the whole period of socialism until
communism. And as Mao so powerfully stated, “Lack of clarity on this question
will lead to revisionism.”
The
Cultural Revolution was the living proof of the vitality of Marxism-Leninism.
It showed that the proletarian revolution was unlike all previous revolutions
which could only result in one exploiting system replacing another. It was a
source of great inspiration to the revolutionaries in all countries. For all
these reasons the Cultural Revolution and Mao Tsetung earned the lasting and
vicious abuse of all reactionaries and revisionists and for these same reasons
the Cultural Revolution remains an indispensable part of the revolutionary
legacy of the international communist movement.
Despite the
tremendous victories of the Cultural Revolution the revisionists in the Chinese
party and state continued to maintain important positions and promoted lines
and policies which did considerable harm to the still fragile efforts to
rebuild a genuine international communist movement. The revisionists in China, who controlled to a large degree its
diplomacy and the relations between the Chinese Communist Party and other Marxist-Leninist
parties, turned their backs on the revolutionary struggles of the proletariat
and the oppressed peoples or tried to subordinate these struggles to the state interests
of China.
Reactionary despots were falsely labelled as “anti-imperialists” and increasingly
under the banner of a worldwide struggle against “hegemonism” certain imperialist
powers of the Western bloc were portrayed as intermediate or even positive forces
in the world. Even during this period many of the pro-Chinese Marxist-Leninist parties
supported by the revisionists in the CPC began to shamelessly tail the
bourgeoisie and even support or acquiesce in imperialist adventures and war preparations
aimed at the Soviet Union which was
increasingly seen as the “main enemy” in the whole world. All these tendencies
blossomed fully with the coup d’état in China and the revisionists’ subsequent
elaboration of the “Three Worlds Theory” which they attempted to shove down the
throats of the international communist movement. The Marxist-Leninists have correctly
refuted the revisionist slander that the “Three Worlds Theory” was put forward by
Mao Tsetung. However this is not enough. The criticism of the “Thee Worlds
Theory” must be deepened by criticising the concepts underlying it, and the
origins must be investigated. Here it is important to note that the revisionist
usurpers had to publicly condemn Mao’s closest comrades in arms for opposing
this counter-revolutionary theory.
One of the
essential contradictions or features of the epoch of imperialism and the proletarian
revolution is the contradiction between socialist states and imperialist
states. While at the present time this contradiction has been temporarily
eliminated as a result of the revisionist transformation of a number of
formerly socialist states, it is no less true that summing up the experience of
the communist movement in handling this contradiction remains an important
theoretical task, for it is inevitable that the proletariat will again find
itself in a position where one or a number of socialist states will be confronted
with the existence of predatory imperialist enemies. In 1976 shortly after the
death of Mao Tsetung the capitalist roaders in China launched a vicious coup d’état
which reversed the verdicts of the Cultural Revolution, overthrew the revolutionaries
in the leadership of the CPC, instituted an all-round revisionist programme and
capitulated to imperialism.
This coup d’état
met with resistance from the revolutionaries in the Chinese Communist Party who
have continued to struggle for a restoration of proletarian rule in that
country. Internationally, revolutionary communists in many countries saw
through the revisionist line of Hua Kuo-feng and Teng Hsiao-ping and criticised
and exposed the capitalist roaders in China. This resistance, in China
and internationally, to the coup d’état is a testimony to the farsighted
revolutionary leadership of Mao Tsetung who tirelessly worked to arm the
proletariat and the Marxist-Leninists with an appraisal of the class struggle
under the dictatorship of the proletariat and the possibility of a capitalist restoration.
The theoretical work done by the proletarian headquarters, guided by Mao Tsetung,
also played a major role in equipping Marxist-Leninists with a correct understanding
of the nature of the contradictions in socialist society and remains an important
elaboration of Mao Tsetung Thought. This left the Marxist-Leninist movement ideologically
better prepared for the tragic events in 1976 than they were on the occasion of
the revisionist coup in the Soviet Union
twenty years earlier, despite being forced to face this situation where there
was no socialist country.
Nevertheless
it was inevitable that the restoration of capitalism in a country comprising one
quarter of the world’s population and the revisionist capture of the
Marxist-Leninist party that had been in the vanguard of the international
movement would profoundly affect the world revolutionary struggle and the
Marxist-Leninist movement. Many parties previously part of the international
communist movement embraced the revisionists in China and their “Three Worlds
Theory”, and totally abandoned revolutionary struggle. As a result of this
these parties spread some demoralisation and, on the other hand, lost the confidence
of the revolutionary elements and have undergone a great crisis or collapsed entirely.
Even among some other Marxist-Leninist forces that refused to follow the leadership
of the Chinese revisionists, the loss in China led to demoralisation and the
putting into question of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought. This tendency
was further exacerbated when Enver Hoxha and the PLA launched an all out attack
on Mao Tsetung Thought.
While a
certain crisis was to be expected in the international communist movement following
the coup d’état in China,
the depth of this crisis and the difficulty in putting an end to it indicated
that revisionism in different forms was already strong in the Marxist- Leninist
movement by 1976. The Marxist-Leninists must continue to carry out investigation
and study into the roots of revisionism, in both the more recent period and in
previous periods in the international movement, and continue to wage struggle
against the continuing revisionist influence while continuing to uphold and
build upon the basic principles forged in the revolutionary advances made by
the international proletariat and the communist movement throughout its
history.
The Tasks of Revolutionary Communists
The task of
revolutionary communists in all countries is to hasten the development of the world
revolution - the overthrow of imperialism and reaction by the proletariat and
the revolutionary masses; the establishment of the dictatorship of the
proletariat in accordance with the necessary stages and alliances in different
countries; and the struggle to eliminate all the material and ideological
vestiges of exploiting society and thus achieve classless society, communism,
throughout the world. First and foremost communists must remember and act in
accordance with their reason for being, otherwise they are of no use to the
revolution, and worse, degenerate into obstacles in its path.
Experience
has shown that proletarian revolution can only be achieved and carried forward
by a genuine proletarian party based on the science of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung
Thought, constructed on Leninist lines, capable of attracting and training the
best revolutionary elements among the proletariat and other sections of the
masses. Today there is no such party in most countries in the world and even
where such parties exist they are generally not ideologically or
organizationally strong enough to meet the requirements and the opportunities of
the coming period. For these reasons the establishment and strengthening of
genuine Marxist-Leninist parties is a vital task for the entire international
communist movement.
In
countries where no Marxist-Leninist party exists the immediate task facing the revolutionary
communists there is to form such a party with the aid of the international communist
movement. The key to the establishment of the party is the development of a correct
political line and programme, both as regards the particularities in a given
country and the overall world situation. The Marxist-Leninist party must be
built in close relationship with carrying out revolutionary work among the
masses, implementing a revolutionary mass line, and, in particular, addressing
and resolving the pressing political questions which must be resolved in order
for the revolutionary movement to advance. If this is not done the task of
party building can become sterile, divorced from revolutionary practice and
lead nowhere. On the other hand it is just as wrong to make the formation of the
party dependent upon the rallying of a certain number of members or to insist
that a certain quantitative influence among the masses be achieved before the
pa11y’s formation. In most cases when the party is first formed, it will be
composed of a relatively small number of members; in any event, the task of
rallying the revolutionary elements to the party’s banner and deepening the
influence of the party among the proletariat and masses is a constant task.
The
Marxist-Leninist party must be built and strengthened in the course of waging
an active ideological struggle against bourgeois and petit-bourgeois influences
in its ranks. In building the vanguard party, Marxist-Leninists should learn
from the experience of the Cultural Revolution through which Mao fought to
insure the party’s proletarian character and vanguard role. Mao’s understanding
of the two-line struggle in the party, his criticisms of erroneous ideas of “a
monolithic party” and his emphasis on the need for the ideological remoulding
of party members enriched the basic concept of the vanguard party developed by
Lenin. It is important to create a political situation in which there are both
centralism and democracy, both discipline and freedom, both unity of will and personal
ease of mind and liveliness.
Without
being guided by revolutionary theory, practice gropes in the dark. The Marxist-
Leninist parties, and the international communist movement as a whole, must
deepen their grasp of revolutionary theory in the course of making a concrete
analysis of concrete conditions in society and the world. Marxist-Leninists
must not abandon the field of analysis of new phenomena to others and must
actively wage the theoretical struggle concerning all the vital problems and
questions of debate in the revolutionary movement and society as a whole.
The
Marxist-Leninist party must be built and organised with the fundamental
objective of seizing power firmly in mind and undertake the task of preparing
itself and the proletariat and revolutionary masses organizationally,
politically and ideologically. As the Joint Communiqué of Autumn 1980 put it, “In
short, communists are advocates of revolutionary warfare.” This revolutionary
war and other forms of revolutionary struggle must be carried out as a key
arena for training the revolutionary masses to be capable of wielding political
power and transforming society. Even when conditions do not yet exist for the
armed struggle of the masses, communists must carry out the necessary work in preparation
for the emergence of such conditions. This principle has a whole series of implications
for the Marxist-Leninist parties, regardless of the differences in tasks and stages
the revolution will go through in different countries, including that the
party, the backbone of which must be organised on an illegal basis, should be
prepared to withstand the repression of the reactionaries who will never
peacefully tolerate for long a genuine revolutionary party.
While
engaging in, or preparing for, the armed struggle for power the
Marxist-Leninist party should utilise different forms of legal and/or open
work. History has shown that such work while important and sometimes even
critical in a given period, must be coupled with exposure of the class nature
of bourgeois democracy and in no circumstances should the communists drop their
guard and fail to take the necessary measures to insure the continued ability
of the party to carry out revolutionary work when different legal possibilities
disappear. Past experiences of handling the contradiction between utilising
legal and open possibilities without falling into legalism and parliamentary
cretinism should be summed up and the appropriate lessons drawn.
To carry
out its revolutionary tasks, to prepare the masses for the seizure of power,
the Marxist-Leninist party must be armed with a regularly appearing communist
press, even though the press will have a different role in relation to the
tasks posed by the path of revolution in the two types of countries. The
communist press must be neither petty and narrow nor dry and dogmatic. It must
strive to arm the class conscious proletariat and others with an all-round view
of society and the world, principally through analysis and political exposure
following close on the heel of events.
The
Marxist-Leninist party in every country must be built as a contingent of the international
communist movement and must carry out its struggle as part of, and subordinate
to, the worldwide struggle for communism. The party must educate its own ranks,
the class conscious workers and the revolutionary masses in the spirit of proletarian
internationalism, recognising that internationalism is not simply the support rendered
of the proletariat in one country to another but, more importantly, a
reflection of the fact that the proletariat is a single class worldwide with a
single class interest, faces a world system of imperialism, and has the task of
liberating all of humanity.
Such
internationalist education and propaganda is an indispensable part of preparing
the party and proletariat to continue to carry the revolution forward after
political power has been achieved in a given country. The achievement of
political power, and even the establishment of a socialist system not based on
exploitation, must be seen not as the end in itself but as one part of a long
transition period full of twists and turns and inevitable setbacks as well as
advances until the goal of worldwide communism has been achieved.
To be continued
No comments:
Post a Comment