An important look at Sison and Ajith's view on the Communist Party and the role of Lenin and Stalin
Reply of Chairman Joma Sison to Ajith’s article on the party
Posted by Harsh Thakor
1. It is wrong to accuse (Vladimir Ilyich) Lenin (Владимир
Ильич Ленин) and (Joseph) Stalin (Иосиф Сталин (Russian),
იოსებ სტალინი (Georgian)
of committing bloody purges in the anti-communist sense of
violating the right of people’s rights to life and due process and in construing
ideological and political opinions opposed to Lenin and Stalin as criminal
offense subject to severe punishment. It is the anti-communists who have
twisted the meaning of the term “purging from the party membership list”
members who have become inactive or culpable for proven acts of indiscipline or
criminal misconduct.
2. Lenin is well-known and celebrated for using inner party
debate and persuasion to move from a minority position to a majority position.
He is not known for physical purges to get rid of other Party members who hold
opinions contrary to his position. The Red Terror ascribed to him was a
judicious response and counter under the laws of war against the prior White
Terror in the course of war. Guidelines and rules were issued for differentiating
types of criminal offenses and for conducting military court trials in the
battlefronts.
3. Stalin relied on the mass movement to identify, denounce
and isolate counterrevolutionaries or enemies of the people and allowed the
security agencies and the courts to prosecute and try the accused. Mao (Zedong,
毛泽东) made an
ideological and political critique and evaluation of Stalin as prone to errors
of mishandling contradictions among the people (due to denial of classes and
class struggle in socialist society) and likewise to administrative measures
instead of revolutionary educational and cultural work. But still Mao
considered Stalin as a great revolutionary leader, with his merits outweighing
his demerits.
4. Mao agreed with Lenin that the resistance of both the
international and domestic bourgeoisie is multiplied 10,000 times after the
victory of the socialist revolution. He had the advantage of observing the rise
of modern revisionism in the Soviet Union and revisionist currents in China within the
party, state and society. Thus, he put forward the epoch-making theory of
continuing revolution under proletarian dictatorship through Cultural Revolution
in order to combat modern revisionism, prevent capitalist restoration and
consolidate socialism.
5. It is an old and cheap trick of the imperialists,
revisionists and other anti-communists to denigrate and vilify the personality
of great communist leaders and use the subjectivist and personalistic slander
as short-cut to discredit the entire socialist society or revolutionary
movement. It is unfortunate if some revolutionaries and progressives become
influenced by the term “personality cult,” first invented by (Nikita)
Khrushchev (Никита Хрущёв) and then broadcast by Western propaganda. It is a
smart subjectivist phrase for attacking the collective character and mode of
decision-making by the communist party and revolutionary mass formations.
6. Regarding the Comintern, its merits
outweighed its demerits. The Comintern must be honored and celebrated for
having promoted the establishment of communist and workers parties in so many
countries. Of course, there is the well-known case of Wang Ming invoking the authority
and prestige of the Comintern in order to push an erroneous and extremely
damaging line in China
in the 1930s. At its best, the Comintern sent out its representative to study
country situations and on the basis of their findings gave sound advice. It was
outmoded by the loss of communications and coordination due to World War II in
1943 and was further outmoded by the principles of the independence and
equality among the communist and workers’ parties.
CRITIQUE OF CHAIRMAN JOMA SISON TO COMRADE AJITH'S ARTICLE
'ON THE MAOIST PARTY"
By Harsh Thakor
This is a positing of a most dialectical analysis with MLM
perspective by Chairman Sison on Comrade Ajith's viewpoint. Very insightful for
all cadres to study. Just below is the URL
of the article of Ajith.
1. It is wrong to accuse Lenin and Stalin of committing
bloody purges in the anti-communist sense of violating the right of people’s
rights to life and due process and in construing ideological and political
opinions opposed to Lenin and Stalin as criminal offense subject to severe
punishment. It is the anti-communists who have twisted the meaning of the term
“purging from the party membership list” members who have become inactive or
culpable for proven acts of indiscipline or criminal misconduct.
2. Lenin is well-known and celebrated for using inner party
debate and persuasion to move from a minority position to a majority position.
He is not known for physical purges to get rid of other Party members who hold
opinions contrary to his position. The Red Terror ascribed to him was a
judicious response and counter under the laws of war against the prior White
Terror in the course of war. Guidelines and rules were issued for
differentiating types of criminal offenses and for conducting military court
trials in the battlefronts.
3. Stalin relied on the mass movement to identify, denounce
and isolate counterrevolutionaries or enemies of the people and allowed the
security agencies and the courts to prosecute and try the accused. Mao made an
ideological and political critique and evaluation of Stalin as prone to errors
of mishandling contradictions among the people (due to denial of classes and
class struggle in socialist society) and likewise to administrative measures
instead of revolutionary educational and cultural work. But still
Mao considered Stalin as a great revolutionary leader, with
his merits outweighing his demerits.
4. Mao agreed with Lenin that the resistance of both the
international and domestic bourgeoisie is multiplied 10,000 times after the
victory of the socialist revolution. He had the advantage of observing the rise
of modern revisionism in the Soviet Union and revisionist currents in China within
the party, state and society. Thus, he put forward the epoch-making theory of
continuing revolution under proletarian dictatorship through Cultural Revolution
in order to combat modern revisionism, prevent capitalist restoration and
consolidate socialism.
5. It is an old and cheap trick of the imperialists,
revisionists and other anti-communists to denigrate and vilify the personality
of great communist leaders and use the subjectivist and personalistic slander
as short-cut to discredit the entire socialist society or revolutionary movement.
It is unfortunate if some revolutionaries and progressives become influenced by
the term “personality cult,” first invented by Khrushchev
and then broadcast by Western propaganda. It is a smart
subjectivist phrase for attacking the collective character and mode of
decision-making by the communist party and revolutionary mass formations.
6. Regarding the Comintern, its merits outweighed its
demerits. The Comintern must be honored and celebrated for having promoted the
establishment of communist and workers parties in so many countries. Of course,
there is the well-known case of Wang Ming invoking the authority and prestige
of the Comintern in order to push an erroneous and extremely damaging line in China
in the 1930s. At its best, the Comintern sent out its representative to study
country situations and on the basis of their findings gave sound advice. It was
outmoded by the loss of communications and coordination due to World War II in
1943 and was further outmoded by the principles of the independence and
equality among the communist and workers’ parties.
The URL:
No comments:
Post a Comment