__________________________________________________________________
Information mainly extracted from articles published in the four issues of International Forum. Selected by the editors of MLOC In Struggle!, the organisation’s perspective was summarised in the Political Report at the Third Congress (Proletarian Unity June-September 1979) Wade Giles transliteration was used throughout the articles (Mao Tse-Tung / Mao Zedong -Pinyin)
___________________________________________________
In the aftermath of Mao’s death, there emerged a period of intense ideological confrontation. For some parties and organizations, there was little left for Marxist-Leninists to debate on this question. They consider as proven that the demarcations between opposing points of view are demarcations between Marxism-Leninism on the one hand and revisionism and opportunism on the other. This proved to be a correct, if self-fulfilling, assumption.
Whilst, like the contemporary scene, back then although a certain confluence of views among some parties and organizations on specific issues could be seen, and even on some very important it would nevertheless be a distortion of reality to pretend that unity was been achieved on all the fundamental questions seen as confronting anti-revisionists Marxist-Leninists.
MLOC In Struggle! argued , it can be said without fear of contradiction that unity on important questions — for example, the rejection of the “three worlds theory”, or the rejection of defence of Mao Zedong Thought — was sometimes accompanied by equally important differences on other questions, such as the path of the revolution, one’s attitude towards one’s own bourgeoisie or party-building.
The debate on how Mao Zedong Thought should be evaluated certainly raises fundamental questions for Marxist-Leninists. For instance, how can we scientifically explain and understand the temporary victory of capitalism in China? This debate in increasingly related to the same kind of questioning about the U.S.S.R., for both these countries had, in different conditions and historic periods, begun to build socialism. The struggle against (what MLOC In Struggle!, amongst others , quickly characterised as) Chinese revisionism and — and, consequently, the evaluation of the role played by Mao Zedong in the light of the decisive victory of the capitalist road in China — is certainly the question on which Marxist-Leninists have concentrated the most. Marxist-Leninists do not all agree on how to evaluate the contributions of Mao. Some say that Mao Zedong Thought is the ideological and political basis for the restoration of capitalism in China, that Mao Zedong Thought is in contradiction with Marxism-Leninism; while others hold that, on the contrary, Mao made crucial contributions to the development of Marxist-Leninist theory on a number of points. Indeed, domestically and internationally some during the Cultural Revolution raised him above all others.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
After the death of Mao and the arrest of the Gang of Four, In Struggle! maintained silence on the changes in China until 1977 when it came out against the Three-Worlds theory and generally supported the criticisms of it by the Party of Labour of Albania (PLA). In Struggle! would also denounce the Chinese leadership –however, it never supported the PLA’s attacks against Mao himself.
After the adoption of a programme at its third congress in 1978, In Struggle! renamed itself the Marxist-Leninist Organization of Canada, In Struggle! It also called for unification of the Marxist Leninist movement around a new communist international that would be based on a communist programme rather than the practice of following the line of “father parties” such as the Communist Party of China and the Party of Labor of Albania. Toward this end, In Struggle! launched the magazine International Forum in 1980 as an open forum for debate between anti-revisionist groups that were opposed to the developments in China. However, it had little success as political positions were rapidly hardening between those organizations that supported the PLA and those that still supported Mao. During this time In Struggle! became critical of nationalism which in its opinion, had infected the Marxist Leninist movement for too long.
~ Canadian section of Encyclopaedia of Anti-Revisionism Online
:: Selected documents of In Struggle! For example ::
Message From Canadian Marxist-Leninist Group “In Struggle” [on the death of Mao] [Peking Review, #45, 1976]
On the theory of three worlds: Differences to solve on the basis of Marxism-Leninism
Against Right Opportunism on International Questions [On the “Three Worlds” Theory]
The “Three Worlds Theory” must be opposed: No compromises with imperialism
On China
The Chinese leaders descend onto the path blazed by Tito and Khrushchev
Second anniversary of Mao’s death: Step up the fight against the new revisionist impostors!
For a principled struggle against modern revisionism
The leaders of the Communist Party of China are taking China down the capitalist road
Nicaragua: a revolution to be continued
Behind the “Islamic revolution” lies the counter revolution
On International Marxist-Leninist Unity
For the Political and Organizational Unity of the International Communist Movement: Appeal from the 3rd Congress of IN STRUGGLE! to the Communists (M-L) of the World
An important contribution in the struggle against revisionism
On the question of Mao Zedong
The need for an international communist organization
Communist parties of Austria and Turkey: Questioning the notion of “superpowers”
For the political and organizational unity of the international communist movement
At the international anti-imperialist youth camp: Sectarianism is an obstacle in the struggle against revisionism
To unite the international communist movement
Chilean RCP publishes Appeal in Spanish for International Communist Movement
The unity of the international Marxist-Leninist movement: A political question for today
What road leads to unity in the world communist movement?
An openness to debate and polemics in the international communist movement
An international conference: A way of broadening the criticism of revisionism
Four organizations call for international conference of Marxist-Leninists
On Enver Hoxha’s book, Eurocommunism is anti-communism. There are questions that still need to be answered by Charles Gagnon
International Forum: true forum for international debate
The unity of the international communist movement also involves many forces that we had overlooked
Responses to the conference proposal
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| Summarised by MLOC IN STRUGGLE! the evaluation debate around Mao Tse-tung and the Chinese Revolution |
Following the increasingly open and flagrant revisionist character of the leaders of the Chinese CP who took power after the death of Mao, the disagreements on the historical evaluation of Mao Tse-tung and on the Chinese revolution became the most important subject of debate in the ICM.
The Albanian Party /PLA played a prominent role in developing the debate on this question. Enver Hoxha’s book Imperialism and the Revolution, appeared in the spring of 1979 in many languages, was devoted not only to the analysis of imperialism and different forms of revisionism, but also to charge the reactionary character of ‘Mao Tse-tung Thought’ as the ideological basis of Chinese revisionism.
Hoxha concludes that Mao was never a Marxist-Leninist, that the CPC has not been ML at least since 1935, and that the Chinese revolution never developed into a socialist revolution. Later during 1979 this book was followed by the two volume work Reflections on China, in which Hoxha claims to demonstrate the pragmatic, vacillating, and opportunist nature of the leadership of the CPC during the last decade. These opinions and remarks were repeated uncritically by supporters of the PLA.
Many forces active in the International Communist Movement/ICM indicated their basic support of the theses put forward by Hoxha and the PLA in terms of identifying ‘Mao Tse-tung Thought’ as an important and dangerous form of modern revisionism. This position was adopted by the 4th Congress of the CP of Germany ML, held in December 1978. The CPG ML published a book entitled 30 years of the Peoples’ Republic, 30 years of lies and deception to explain these conclusions.
Similar positions were adopted by the Congress of the CP of Portugal (Reconstructed) in May 1979, and were ratified by the 3rd Congress of the CP of Spain ML in November 1979. These basic positions were supported by the Workers CP of France, the CP of Dahomey, the RCP — Construction Organization of Turkey, the CP of Workers and Peasants of Iran, the Voltaic RCP, the CPU.S.A. ML, the CP of Denmark ML, the CP of Mexico ML, and the CP of Brazil. The CP ML of Ecuador, after the 15th plenary session of its central committee in October 1979, published a document entitled The CP ML of Ecuador condemns and combats the anti-Marxist Mao Tse-tung Thought. Such positions, however, were not accepted unanimously within the ICM.
Many organizations reacting by publishing to defend the Marxist-Leninist contributions of Mao and the positive experience and lessons of the Chinese revolution. The RCP/U.S.A. was very active in this regard. They published two books entitled The Loss in China and the Revolutionary Legacy of Mao Tse-tung and Mao Tse-tungs’ Immortal Contributions. They also published a reply to Hoxha’s Imperialism and the Revolution in their theoretical journal The Communist entitled Beat Back the Dogmato-Revisionist Attack against Mao Tse-tung.
The RCP of Chile published a lengthy booklet of historical evaluation of the Chinese revolution in which they defend Mao and the lessons of the Cultural Revolution. Evaluation of the Work of Mao Tsetung [published in Revolution, Journal of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 1980]
The CP of Greece ML during 1979 made known its continuing support of the contributions of Mao to the revolutionary struggle in China and the international struggle against revisionism, and its positive assessment of the Cultural Revolution, in its newspaper Proletariaqi Simea.
A developed historical analysis of the Chinese revolution by the Ceylon CP, and a shorter declaration by the CP of Turkey ML both defending Mao — appeared in the Oct/Nov. 1979 issue of the magazine Revolution published by the RCP/U.S.A.
Many other organizations also published texts defending Mao’s contributions on different aspects, including the KABD in West Germany, the organization Voie Proletarienne in France, the Proletarian Communist Organization (ML) in Italy, and two collectives in the U.S.A., the Chicago Committee for a Communist Party and the former members of the Committee for a Proletarian Party.
Leading national formations defended Mao, three world theories and the new Chinese leadership, and criticised the PLA: along with others in south-east asia, the Philippine and Australian parties, the Communist Party (Marxist–Leninist) in the USA, the Canadian Workers’ Communist Party and the Norwegian AKP (ml) possibly the strongest ML group in Europe. Other groups with less international recognition like the RCLB made similar alignment.
Some of the organizations defending Mao also made this question the basic line of demarcation with opportunism. For example, both the RCP/U.S.A. and the newspaper Mass Line from India condemned the positions of the PLA and of those supporting the analysis of revisionism made by the PLA, as “revisionist” because of the attacks against “Mao Tse-tung Thought”. At the same time, the PLA and many of the organizations supporting the PLA’s analysis of Chinese revisionism insisted on the complete repudiation of the influence of “Mao Tse-tung Thought” as an essential condition for the ideological purity of the ICM. The strength of this camp lay in South America (see Joint Declaration of the Delegations of the Marxist-Leninist Parties of Latin America) and a smattering of European groups who engaged in, what was derogatively described as a traveling circus, attending a series of rallies. See: Tirana builds an Internationale tirana-1.pdf (marxists.org)
Divisions and splits
Within the pro-Albanian tendency there were differences, between and within groups, as illustrated early on at an international youth gathering.
The disagreement over the evaluation on of Mao and the Chinese revolution erupted into bitter struggle at the Third International Youth Camp in Valencia, Spain, in August 1979. Because of their refusal to support the categorical denunciation of Mao, members of the following organizations were expelled from the camp as “Maoist provocateurs”: the RCP of Chile, the Marxist-Leninist Party of Austria (MLPO), the CP of Turkey ML, the CP of Cyprus ML, Gegen Die Stromung of West Germany, and Westberliner Kommunist.
A communique justifying this expulsion was signed by the Red Guard (youth organization of the CP of Germany ML), by the youth organization of the CP of Canada ML, by the youth delegation of the CP of Denmark ML, by the CPU.S.A. ML, by the Workers CP of France , by a section of the Confederation of Iranian Students (National Union), by the CP of Mexico ML, by the League of Revolutionary Communist Youth of Portugal, by the Communist Youth of Spain M L, by the Communist Movement/ML of Switzerland, and by the Communist Youth League of Turkey.
Along with the organizations expelled, the RCP/U.S.A. and the MLOC IS! of Canada joined in criticizing this expulsion. While the Canadian group Bolshevik Union provided its own account On the “Third International Youth Camp” in Spain: Provocation Under Cover of Cries Against Provocation [International Correspondence, #1, Spring-Summer 1980] .
Elsewhere there were reports of division and disagreements as that in one of the oldest anti-revisionist groups, the Communist Party of Brazil , and the Communist Party of Spain (Marxist-Leninist) that mirrored those in the so-call ‘Third Worldist’ groups.
The Spanish party saw divisions and splits with the denunciation of a minority group with “rightist, adventurist and liquidationist” positions and activities. Vanguardia Obrera, paper of the PCE(M-L), published a communique from the Executive Committee in its February 6 issue saying that the work of the “factionalists”, who are present at various levels of the party and notably in the CC, was aimed at “ 1) denying, obstructing and opposing in practice the party’s tactic of republican people’s unity; and 2) in the same vein, opposing the party’s tactic of class unity in union work” .
According to the Letter to all party militants from the Executive Committee of the PCE(M-L), “ It is not just a matter of ordinary differences of opinion on this or that aspect of our political line or work, differences that can and must be expressed in the committee or cell where each member works. This would be perfectly normal. Instead, we are faced with activities that tend to undermine the party, its organizational structures and leadership bodies…”
The Letter adds: “The basic goal behind the factionalists’ positions is to change the republican tactic, to dilute it until it blends with all opportunist groups and organizations that talk about the republic but do nothing to win over the masses, a necessary step in order to fight the monarchy…. They also tried to liquidate the AOA (Workers’ Association for the Assembly) so as to restrict union work to the collaborationist labour federations…. They tried to liquidate the Republican Convention and draw up an abstract, ambiguous policy of alliances with pro-Soviet fringe groups like Communist Movement, the Trotskyists and so on.” The Central Committee set up an investigation and control committee to examine the activities of the “factionalists” and establish their scope and internal and externa! links and ramifications. All the members accused of factionalism, including the members of the CC, were dismissed from their positions.
_____________________________________________
In Struggle! reported on “THREE-WORLDISTS: the crisis continues”
“Although some of the groups that defend the three worlds theory have been somewhat successful in the working-class and mass movements — for instance in Norway, the Dominican Republic and Peru— they are still experiencing an on-going crisis (see International Forum, no. 2).
The three worlds theory is interpreted in various ways: as a call for a united front of all the peoples and countries of the second and third worlds against the two superpowers; or as a call for a united front of all forces, including the United States, against Soviet social imperialism.
The activity of the CP of China is undoubtedly one of the contributing factors in the confusion of the three worldists. Besides establishing fraternal ties with the revisionist Italian party, China has suspended its aid to revolutionary movements in Asia. After the CP of Thailand refused to support China in an anti-Vietnam front, it was prevented from using radio transmitters located on Chinese territory. The CP of Thailand has also rejected Vietnamese pressures to join the latter’s anti-Chinese front.
There are important debates going on within the CP(M-L) in the United States, if an article in the February issue of its newspaper, The Call, is to be believed. The article is not an official statement by the party. Nonetheless, it calls for a thorough reassessment of the party’s past line and work. Observing that results are meagre after ten years of work, that the party has lost several hundred members over the last two years and that most of the organizations belonging to this political tendency in advanced capitalist countries are disintegrating, the author indicates that the cause should probably be sought in the fundamental conceptions of the “Maoist” or pro-China parties.
The author says, “Perhaps… Mao Zedong Thought was, after all, primarily an application of Marxism to China’s third world conditions.” The author considers that the main causes of CP(ML)’s failures were its sectarianism towards mass movements, its ultra-leftism towards reforms and its ideological dogmatism. Noting that the party has done very little original theoretical work, he adds: “We have no specific program for revolutionary work either in the short term or the long term, and we can offer the people no concrete vision of what a socialist USA would look like even in a general way.”
________________________________________
For a period at the end of the Seventies for many of the Marxist-Leninist groups, it was the question of the evaluation of Mao and of “Mao TseTung Thought” which continued to be their main preoccupation. In fact, the differing points of view on this question continued to consolidate and to become more radicalized in a large number of particular countries. These points of view even became clearly elaborated opinions circulating widely in the international communist movement without winning new converts to respective positions.
At the same time, there were groups which spoke out in opposition, in different ways and to different degrees, to these attempts to polarize the ICM mainly or exclusively in relation to the evaluation of Mao and of the Chinese revolution. MLOC In Struggle amplified their contributions in their coverage of the issue as many considered that Mao was a Marxist Leninist whose historical role should be evaluated critically. Others who expressed these kinds of opinions were more critical of the legacy of Mao’s thought, and others again clearly supported Mao as a great leader who had made major contributions to Marxism-Leninism and the international revolution. Still others refused to take developed positions on Mao’s historical role without further study.
MLOC In Struggle argued, what these forces shared in common was a dissatisfaction with the way the problem of revisionism and of unity was being posed by most organizations and parties active in the international movement and a willingness to express these views openly and to defend them. These forces spoke out in particular on a series of problems which they did not see as being solved by the radical demarcations around Mao: the problem of the historical basis of opportunism in the general line of the ICM, the problem of the experience of the class struggle against revisionism in all of the formerly socialist countries, and the many urgent problems of the line and practice of the communist forces in the revolutionary struggle today.
Other forces also spoke out on the necessity to find a way to develop a more protracted and wide-spread debate amongst all the communist forces internationally, a debate that would eventually lead to the kind of unity that would help the communist movement solve its most pressing problems. For example, Unidade Communista from Portugal pointed out on the difficulties and errors in the struggle for unity in the ICM and on the historical development of revisionism in the world communist movement.
These explicitly challenged those calling for unity through the rejection or the defense of Mao TseTung Thought, by proposing an open debate on these kind of unsolved problems as the pre-condition to any meaningful international unity.
MLOC In struggle Proposal & Appeal
Amongst these forces there were several that gave open support to the essential elements of the Appeal for the Political and Organizational Unity of the ICM, a document issued by the 3rd Congress of the MLOC In Struggle! in 1979 and widely circulated internationally in French, English, and Spanish. There was some progress with a call that represents the efforts of four smaller Marxist-Leninist organizations to organize an international conference which would permit the open debate of the most burning problems facing the ICM.
The RCP of Belgium M-L and the M-L group Ech-Chooi.a of Tunisia printed summaries of the Appeal in their press, and the organization Peykar in Iran took on the publication of an edition in Farsi. Although these kinds of opinions remained a minority voice amongst the forces active in the ICM, there is no question that they represent the questions, opinions, or criticisms voiced inside and outside the established organizations, even if these organisations were caught in a centrist bog mire unable to secure a larger unity based on their refusal to only demarcate and build unity on the basis of the deepening polarization around Mao.
In Struggle reported in No. 219, September 23, 1980:
The organizations which signed the call
RCP(M-L) (L’Exploité) of Belgium. Formed in 1976 following a break with the CP(M-L) of Belgium (Clarté-L’Exploité). L’Exploité has in fact existed since the late sixties. It united with Clarté in 1973 and remained united until 1976. The RCP(M-L) (L’Exploité) is particularly active in Wallony, the southern (French-speaking) part of Belgium, notably in the Charleroi region where the coal industry is dominant. It has published L’Exploité for more than a dozen years and supports the struggles and strikes of the working class in the region.
The Communist Organization (M-L) EN AVANT PROLETAIRES of France. Formed in 1977. It published a monthly organ, the newspaper Combattre, which is characterized by its continual and concrete denunciation of French imperialism. Given its limited forces, EAP defines its main work as being to implant itself in the working class in France. Its militants are active in a certain number of trade unions and popular struggles, notably in the opposition to the nuclear industry.
EN-CHOOLA of Tunisia. It began its activities with the publication of the newspaper Ech-Choola in 1973. It actively participates in the struggles of the masses to defend their unions given the dismantling of the unions by the Bourguiba dictatorship in 1978. EN-CHOOLA defines its main task as being that of building the Marxist-Leninist party in Tunisia. In the struggle to overthrow the dictatorship, it is working for the unity of the Marxist-Leninists with the patriotic and democratic forces. It publishes certain texts in French including some articles from its newspaper.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Opposition to Mao TseTung Thought as revisionist
The Party of Labour of Albania (PLA) and most of its fraternal parties continued to wage ideological battle against Mao TseTung Thought as a dangerous form of modern revisionism. A few more parties joined them in this campaign, including the CP of New Zealand and the CP of Colombia M-L. The communique from the 11th Congress of the Columbian party, held in the spring of 1980, stated that: “The deep struggle against revisionism, and in particular against Mao TseTung Thought, and the rooting out of its influence in our ranks, constitute the essential elements of our 11th Congress”.
The polemic waged by these parties did not reveal any important new elements in terms of the critique of Mao and his thought, but it did begin to show in certain cases what were some of the practical consequences of these positions for these parties.
For example, parties like the CP of Germany (formerly the CP of Germany M-L), the CP of Spain M-L, and the CP of Portugal (Reconstructed), linked the repudiation of Maoism and the defense of Stalin to their current campaigns to create truly Bolshevik parties with a mass and proletarian character. The Peoples Democratic Movement Marxist-Leninist Party, of the Dominican Republic, held a national cadres conference in June 1980 with this theme of Bolshevisation of the party. The conference analyzed the world and domestic situation as increasingly revolutionary while noting the domination in almost all the forces of the “left” of class collaboration and revisionism. The conference also analyzed that their party had historically been unable to develop as the kind of authentically proletarian and Bolshevik party that was necessary, stating that: “The old party must get rid of its backwards, maoist, and pro-Chinese conceptions, of its populism, spontaneism, and other deviations…”. To reflect the changes that were necessary, the party changed its name to the C’P of Labour, and the name of its newspaper from Liberty to Lucha (Struggle).
The parties leading the polemic against Mao TseTung Thought also identified the repudiation of Maoism as an essential step forward internationally toward the political maturity and unity of the ICM. For example, the CP of Portugal (Reconstructed) in its newspaper Bandeira Vemielha stated that: “The process presently taking place inside the ICM has the goal of liberating all the Marxist-Leninist parties from the influence of Maoism on the ideological, political, and organizational levels, and is a historic step towards the ripening of the subjective factors of the revolution…” . An argument employed in modern day polemics forecasting revival and renewal if only a certain course of action is taken.
This party also polemicized against the Portuguese newspaper Voz de Povo and the Portuguese communist group Unidade Communista as representatives of an international trend which wants to conciliate with Maoism. They analyze this tendency as one which grew up with the clear passage of China to the camp of the counter-revolution and with the resulting struggle against the three worlds theory and against Maoism. They state: “It started to become fashionable to lose confidence in socialism, in the communist movement, in the revolutionary capacities of the proletariat; there was a strong tendency to postpone the revolution forever… Their general tone is disorientation and “systematic doubt”. Everything is put into question, and those who defend with conviction the basic principles of proletarian socialism are “hasty”, “anti-dialectical”, “dogmatic”, etc…” One important element that was added to the polemic against the influence of Mao TseTung Thought was a clarification of some of the positions of the PLA on the historical basis of opportunism in the ICM. In the last period the PLA dealt more explicitly with the opportunism that existed in the communist movement, especially in the European and other imperialist countries, before the death of Stalin and the rise to power of Khrushchev in the CP of the Soviet Union.
The basic thesis put forward by the PLA was that this opportunism was due to the treacherous activities of opportunists within particular communist parties. For example, the July 25, 1980 edition of the Albanian Telegraphic Agency carried an article dedicated to the 45th anniversary of the 7th Congress of the Comintern, which stated clearly that the guiding line of this Congress for the ICM had been correct, and that the problems that developed in its application were due to the actions of opportunist elements which did not accept these directives.
Enver Hoxha’s book Euro-communism is Anticommunism identifies the revisionist betrayals of the parties like the Greek, Italian, and French parties in the post-World War II period as the results of the actions of traitors who abandoned the general line of the ICM. To represent the general view-point of those who concentrate their ideological struggle on the repudiation of Maoism, included the documents from the 3rd Congress of the CP of Spain M-L. They show clearly some of the essential features of this current at this time: not only the aggressive repudiation of all of the heritage of Mao’s thought and action, but also the confidence in the strength and unity of the forces in the ICM that are united on this basis.
Radicalization of the defence of Mao
Along with the consolidation of the current of opinion condemning Mao TseTung Thought, there was also the continuing development of the radical defence of Mao. In many different countries of the world there were organizations, groups, and circles which published texts to repudiate the attacks on Mao and to re-establish what these groups consider to be Mao’s essential contributions to Marxist-Leninist theory and to the world revolution.
In New Zealand, the repudiation of Mao by the CP of New Zealand led some members of this party to split from it. Generally, the polemics defending Mao remained at the level of statements of principle, without a clear programmatic orientation in terms of the tasks of communists today. However, one important common feature of many of the declarations was their insistence on the fact that the defence of Mao’s contributions was a question of principle, and their consequent conclusion that those who attacked Mao TseTung Thought were adopting revisionist positions. In a few cases those who defended Mao linked this to a broad critique of the general positions of the communist forces who are criticizing or repudiating Mao TseTung Thought.
The CP of Turkey M-L, for example, published a booklet in the spring of 1980 which made a global criticism of the positions of the PLA, not only in relation to their stand on Mao, but also concerning its practice of proletarian internationalism and its general line on the revolution in the dominated countries. This party argued that the PLA had an incorrect understanding of the struggle in the colonies and neo-colonies which was expressed in its denial of the necessity of the democratic stage of the revolution, in thinking that the local bourgeoisie can eliminate feudalism, in denying the role of the peasantry as the main force in these countries, in attacking the strategic path of people’s war, and in forgetting the role of these struggles as the main force of the world revolution today.
As well, this party argued that the PLA had a foreign policy which obscured the role of Soviet social-imperialism and created confusion on the nature of the fascist regimes in the world; that the PLA had abandoned the Marxist-Leninist weapon of criticism and self-criticism in the ICM; and that the PLA failed to understand the nature of class struggle under socialism and the problem of two-line struggle in the party.
Two of the organizations which took the most initiative to raise the defence of Mao TseTung Thought to the level of an international current were the RCP of Chile and the RCP-USA. The RCPUSA, for example, polemicized not only against those who attacked Mao but against those who refused to accept the question of Mao as the fundamental “line of demarcation”, in a feature article of the July, 1980 edition of Revolution, entitled “What the international unity of the proletariat is and how to fight for it…”. This article begins with a self-criticism for the party’s past opposition to an international communist organization, and then goes on to attack the positions of the M-L Organization of Canada In Struggle! on the unity of the ICM.
The RCP-USA argues as follows: that in refusing to accept the demarcation on Mao as fundamental, the MLOC IS! shows its desire to obliterate all the basis demarcations with revisionism for the sake of unity. That in proposing unity on a programme, the MLOC IS! obstructs the only possible unity that can be built for the ICM at this time, which is unity on a general line. That the international conference proposed by the Canadian organization was therefore completely in contradiction to what is most needed in the ICM. The common statement issued by the RCP of Chile and the RCP-USA in June 1980 clearly identifies the defence of Mao as the essential starting-point for the unification of the genuine communists internationally, but also outlines what these two parties see as the other main elements of a necessary “general line”. This saw fruition in the publication of Basic Principles for the Unity of Marxist-Leninists and for the Line of the International Communist Movement A Draft Position Paper for Discussion Prepared by the Revolutionary Communist Party of Chile and the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA dated January 1981.
Other voices in the ICM took positions which gave less emphasis to the repudiation or acceptance of “Mao Tse-tung Thought” as the basis for the struggle against opportunism today.
A supplement to the newspaper Que Hacer of Venezuela, from October 1979, stated that the ideological struggle which exists in the ICM should not be reduced to a simple positive or negative evaluation of Mao, but should be directed towards clarifying the problems of the proletarian revolution as a whole.
The CP of Japan (Left) condemned “Mao Tse-tung Thought” but also insisted on the need to understand all of the forms of revisionism which have affected the ICM since the period of the Second World War.
The CP of Greece M-L expressed the documents of preparation for its 2nd Congress:
“Today many Marxist Leninist parties, perhaps the majority of them, have established as their central political task the development of the proof that Mao had nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism. Our disagreements with this position are many. We disagree — as we have already said — with the essence of this position; because Mao was a great Marxist Leninist, both because he was able to assimilate and apply the principles of Marxism-Leninism to the specific conditions of China, and because he contributed through his theoretical and practical revolutionary work to opening new roads of an international significance…. We disagree with the procedure, with the fact that the majority of parties have started all together, as if they had been suddenly and simultaneously enlightened, to organize congresses whose principal subject was the de-throning of Mao from the place they used to give him. It’s as if the adoption or rejection of an important political position is a question of diplomatic alignment with the evolution of the positions of a party whose authority is recognized as final on general ideological and political questions. We also disagree because all this noise adds new problems without solving any old ones; it does not respond to the questions which are posed in any case by the fifteen years of experience of the international Marxist-Leninist movement —- questions which demand a response. Finally, we disagree because the type of criticism made of Mao TseTung, while it doesn’t clarify any questions or give any convincing answers, objectively weakens the ideological front against revisionism and social-imperialism”.
In spite of the continuing polarization around the evaluation of Mao, many communist forces spoke out to express their belief that this process would not either result in a correct historical understanding of revisionism or solve the burning problems facing the ICM.
Several organizations also [in MLOC IN STRUGGLE!’s view] began to try to contribute to a deeper understanding of the historical origins of opportunism in the world communist movement. For example, the organizations Westberliner Kommunist of West Berlin, Gegen die Stromung of West Germany, and the M-L Party of Austria; continued to publish their collective evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the 1963 “Letter in 25 Points” of the CP of China. Because of the role that this document played in the ICM, this collective work in fact represents an attempt to evaluate what most Marxist-Leninist forces accepted as the programmatic basis for the split with Kruschevite revisionism. These organizations, collectively and individually, also developed polemics on the political positions of some of the larger parties and organizations active in the ICM .
The M-L Organization of Canada IN STRUGGLE! also polemicized on the question of the historical roots of opportunism in the ICM in Proletarian Unity [summer 1980] with the first of a series on this question with an article entitled “What had become of the socialist camp by 1960?” The main thesis of this polemic was that the Moscow Declarations of the world communist parties in 1957 and 1960 did not represent a correct and principled basis of unity later betrayed by the Soviet revisionists — as the CP of China and the PLA were to maintain throughout the following years. They represented rather an erroneous and opportunist analysis of the world situation and the tasks of the communist movement, already profoundly marked by the great power interest of the developing imperialist Soviet Union.
MLOC In Struggle’s commentary on Hoxha’s Imperialism and the Revolution in the April/May 1979 edition of its theoretical review Proletarian Unity. It stated that while the book as a whole was an important contribution to the struggle against revisionism, the MLOC IS! did not agree with the overall evaluation of Mao and the CP of China, and also considered it essential to develop a deeper historical analysis of all the roots of modern revisionism.
The MLOC IS! also put forward a critical evaluation of Enver Hoxha’s Euro-Communism is Anti-Communism, while most of the fraternal parties of the PLA hailed this book as a major contribution to the understanding of revisionism. In the fall, 1980 edition of Proletarian Unity the following criticisms were made of this book:
1) the partial character of the analysis of revisionism, particularly the underestimation of the source of revisionism in the class struggle in each country, including under socialism.
2) the abstract nature of the perspective for action offered to the ICM, and the neglect of the role of the communist programme in the struggle against opportunism.
3) the fact that Hoxha reproduces the same positions as the Euro-communists in relation to the question of national independence for the imperialist countries, making national liberation a strategic task.
Debates on the unification of the world communist movement
International Forum Vol 2 no 2 August 1981.
Reproducing the “Presentation by International Forum” reflects an earlier age of polemical exchange in the international anti-revisionist movement that followed the death of Mao Zedong and the intervention of the ruling Party of Labour of Albania at the end of the nineteen-seventies.
Through its editorial selection and commentaries, the viewpoint was present of the Marxist Leninist Organisation in Canada In Struggle! [MLOC In Struggle!] through publication of International Forum.
They argued that making known the stands taken by Marxist-Leninists on the key questions with which they are confronted is a first and fundamental step towards being able to evaluate and criticize them. Our policy will therefore be to make known the different positions without imposing any censorship or discrimination against various tendencies.
Rather like today’s International Communist League, MLOC In Struggle! , intend to contribute to the intensification of the polemic in the ranks of Marxist-Leninists and of the forces throughout the world that were seeking to make a break with revisionism. If International Forum help advance the polemics and debates to serve the struggle for the unity of the international Marxist-Leninist movement, it raised the question: Unity, but around what line, what programme?
Post Mao, there were signifiers in the political judgement made in relation to the arrest of the “Gang of Four”, the theory of three worlds and on either side of the divide, for many organizations, the definition of who should be united and on what political basis was inseparably tied to one’s position on how to evaluate Mao Zedong Thought.
The international anti-revisionist movement – never an institutionalised structure, delineated more by political allegiance expressed for Albania and China, saw the previous unity of the international communist movement crumble as organisations took up multivarious stances.
MLOC In Struggle! had politically criticised the post Mao leadership and the foreign policy statement commonly known as “three world theory”. It had criticism of the Albanian positions and those who upheld Mao but not the revisionist Hua/Deng regime. Still it took the initiative of reproducing extracts of various statements from other organisations reflecting the ideological and political struggle within the international anti-revisionist organisations in the contentious post-Mao period. In International Forum, MLOC In Struggle did summarise the position, on what should have been a settled question, in its commentary on The Soviet Union and the world communist movement , and it compared the analysis published on the American left.
The fourth issue of International Forum featured criticism from Voie Proletarienne of France of the Joint Declaration by 13 organisations upon the launch of the journal, A World To Win! associated with the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM), founded in France in March 1984 by 17 various Maoist organisations around the world.
This is followed by an accompanying commentary by MLOC In Struggle! that expresses its disagreement with the Voie Proletarienne text.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Debates on the unification of the world communist movement
Source: International Forum Vol 2 no2 1981
Presentation by International Forum
During the last few years, the anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist forces around the world have been in a state of general ideological and political crisis, a crisis provoked in part by the triumph of an openly revisionist line in the Communist Party of China. Faced with this situation, different Marxist-Leninist parties and organizations have tried to put forward a principled basis on which the world communist movement could unite and fight revisionism.
One of these attempts has come from the Party of Labour of Albania (PLA), and has involved the repudiation of Mao TseTung as the cause of Chinese revisionism, and a call for the return to the Bolshevik principles of Stalin.
Another attempt has come from those forces that see any repudiation of Mao as a dangerous form of revisionism, be it from the current Chinese leaders, or from the PLA and its supporters, or from “centrists” who refuse to make the defence of Mao the key line of demarcation in the world movement.
The RCP, USA and the RCP of Chile have been active in giving leadership to this latter trend, and in trying to concretize the defense of Mao TseTung Thought in the form of a general ideological and political line for the world movement. Recently their efforts have been concretized in the form of a common declaration, and in the publication a new international journal, A World to Win.
Two different Marxist-Leninist organizations that were involved in discussion of this unity project as it developed, but which — for different reasons — did not unite with the final results of these initiatives as represented by the common declaration: the Communist Marxist-Leninist Organization Voie Proletarienne of France, and explains why, after participating in the discussions, they refused to sign the common declaration. Whereas, the Marxist-Leninist Organization of Canada IN STRUGGLE!, an organization which discussed this unity project in its initial stages with the American and Chilean parties, but which was denied any further involvement by these parties because of its refusal to accept the integral defense of Mao tse Tung thought as a starting point for unity. The text is written as a commentary on the article by Voie Proletarienne, but its content provides a more general view of IN STRUGGLE! disagreements with all those forces that make the defence of Mao the key question in Fighting opportunism and building unity.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Editor’s note: Because of space limitations, we are only able to produce the last and concluding section of this text by Voie Proletarienne. However, we feel that this extract sums up their basic argument dearly and simply. In the preceding parts of the text which are not produced here, Voie Proletarienne argues against a dogmatic conception of communist unity that ignores the necessity to take position on new developments in the world proletarian struggle, in particular on the concrete lessons to be drawn from the negative experience of the restoration of capitalism in a number of formerly socialist countries. They also draw out numerous examples to prove that the common declaration by 12 organizations refuses to take positions on many burning political questions that divide communists — including those who signed the declaration. They make reference to the many questions that divide communists today in relation to the fight against imperialist war, the basic tasks of communists, the situation in the dependent and colonial countries, the tasks in imperialist countries, and the problem of communist unity — questions that are essentially ignored or glossed over in the general line formulated in the common declaration.
________________________________________________________________________________
Text by Voie Proletarienne,
Two Lines on Communist Unity
What communists, workers and the peoples of the world need today is a line of struggle to defeat imperialism. Communists will build unity in the heat of the theoretical and practical struggle to develop this line and make it a vital reality in the masses. It is in the course of the struggle against imperialism that communists are forced to struggle against opportunism. But communists do not mistake their target and the shadow it casts. They will therefore never be fooled into thinking that dealing with the past is enough to settle the questions of the present or that the struggle against opportunism is sufficient to crush imperialism. Nor can communists continue the “traditional” practice of subordinating political questions to organizations! ones, on the pretext that there is a genuine desire around the world for unity and that there are urgent tasks to be carried out. We believe that the call to struggle must not just remain a struggle over the call. Concern with the urgency of tasks does take the place of actually dealing with urgent tasks.
Today, it is undeniable that the recognition or nonrecognition of the contributions of the Great Cultural Proletarian Revolution and of Mao Zedong to the development of the revolutionary science of the proletariat is a key element for struggle and for unity. But it is also undeniable that there are differences and questions which arise from the living and creative application of these contributions. These vital and practical differences prevent communists today from waging a UNITED STRUGGLE. But instead of posing these differences openly in order to mobilize communists around the world to resolve the differences, and thereby prepare the grounds for a revolutionary Appeal to struggle followed by a practical leadership over the struggle, this Appeal covers up differences in order to attain superficial unity. For decades now, the ideological and political struggle within the International Communist Movement (ICM) has been stifled so as to maintain a facade of superficial unity and wildly overoptimistic talk which had little to do with reality. Experience has shown that this attitude is harmful to the interests of the revolutionary proletariat. Today, communists cannot avoid criticizing the “always unanimous” form and the opportunist content of this past unity. If communists do not want to repeat the same basic errors, they must not repeat the same erroneous methods. This is why, in spite of the fact that we feel a great need to debate, to subject our practice and ideas to scrutiny and to achieve militant unity with other communists of the world, we cannot sign this Appeal. We do not believe that the minimal political bases have been clarified to the point that THIS step forward of appealing to the workers and peoples of the world to fight under the united leadership of communists can be made.
On the contrary, to embark on this path today, on this basis, is to spread or perpetuate illusions about the true capacity of communists to LEAD a UNITED revolutionary struggle. It also shuts down the dynamic struggle to resolve differences. It therefore also serves to encourage those forces which look for answers to their questions on an international level or in the purity of doctrine rather than in the concrete application of Marxism-Leninism to national and international reality. And finally, it encourages the apparently neutral position in the international ideological and political struggle of those who completely deny the ideological and political importance of the differences on the pretext of not remaining at the level of the superficial divisions introduced by Enver Hoxha’s revisionist attack on Mao’s work. In the final analysis it provides ammunition to the “center” and encourages it to lean to its favorite side: the right.
In closing, are we against unity?
We are not breaking from or opposing the movement towards unity that is apparent among world communist forces today. We are opposing THIS Appeal. Nevertheless, we hope to contribute and to be open to all positive contributions from others which help advance the struggle for revolutionary unity.
Finally, we are not hostile “in principle” to signing a document and to participating in a process of unity with which we do not agree on ail points. We are not upholders of the “ all or nothing” point of view. We have learned through our struggle to build the unity of communists in France that while you do not build unity without demarcating, you cannot demarcate on everything all at once and forget that unity is also a way of developing demarcation. But there is one precondition to tactical flexibility: maintaining what is essential. And this Appeal, which hushes up differences and pretends to be the basis for a united struggle, does not respect this one condition. At best, it’s a snare at worst, it’s a hoax.
Finally, we believe that to achieve the militant unity of communists, we must pursue the path on which we had begun, that is:
— that each party and organization continue the theoretical and practical work called for by the concrete situation in their country;
— that parties and organizations deepen their understanding of one another’s political lines and practices and develop the struggle for ideological, political and practical unity;
— that parties and organizations translate and pass around documents and wage polemics among themselves and to publish texts in whatever organs are willing to print them;
— that parties and organizations hold bilateral and multilateral meetings to raise the level of struggle and unity to the highest possible level.
We should do this so that we may, in the shortest possible period of time, develop a minimal political basis of agreement on revolutionary strategy and tactics which will enable us to organize common activities to build the true unity of militant communists.
We have already taken up this work and we intend to pursue it. “Without defending Mao Zedong’s contributions and without building on the basis of these contributions, it is impossible to defeat revisionism, imperialism and the reactionary forces in general.” (Appeal, page 9).
The leading body of
the MARXIST-LENINIST COMMUNIST ORGANIZATION VOIE PROLETARIENNE
Text from MLOC IN STRUGGLE!.
Some comments on the analysis by Voie Proletarienne
The organization Voie Proletarienne of France says it refused to endorse the Joint Public Statement of the 13 organizations for basically one reason: the statement liquidates the real differences between communist forces on what the revolutionary line in various situations is today and simply reiterates abstract principles. Can we conclude that the movement initiated by the RCP-USA and the RCP of Chile has already shown, by virtue of its practice, that its superficial effort to promote the unity of Marxist-Leninists is a dead-end? Unfortunately, not yet.
Dogmatism has never solved anything
Voie Proletarienne is correct to criticize the Joint Statement as abstract. For the most part, this statement skirts on the fringes of the true problems posed by the present revolutionary struggle.
Indeed, this statement which claims to put forward “important elements” for the “development of a correct ideological and political line for the international communist movement” (Joint statement, page 2) in practice only reiterates principles which are already known: the need to continue class struggle under socialism, the need for armed struggle, the need for a communist party, etc. And Voie Proletarienne is correct in stating that Marxist-Leninists have been repeating the same principles for 20 years now, persuading themselves that by doing so they were demarcating from revisionism.
But, is it in any way surprising that the Joint Statement turned out to be what it is? Could it have be different? We believe it could not. And that is what Voie Proletarienne does not understand or refuses to admit. For, instead of concluding that it is impossible to sort out the confusion and differences within the International Communist Movement by starting from statements of principle, Voie Proletarienne explains the superficial nature of the statement by the fact that there exists “two conceptions of how to interpret the contributions of the Great Cultural Proletarian Revolution and of Mao’s work” (Voie Proletarienne, pg. 10). So, Voie Proletarienne concludes that the problem lies with this particular statement and not the basic assumption underlying it, that is, that the solution of the crisis of the International Communist Movement lies in the defense of Mao Zedong Thought.
Yet, that is precisely the reason why the Joint Statement is incapable of providing convincing answers today and why it is incapable of taking a stand on the differences which exist in the International Communist Movement and which require a concrete analysis of concrete situations.
Is it surprising that those who signed the statement have nothing new to say on revolutionary strategy and tactics in imperialist countries since, in their view, the absence of successful revolutions in these countries can be explained by just one thing: the abandonment of Marxist-Leninist principles?
Voie Proletarienne must certainly not be unaware of the practice of the RCP-USA in its own country: a practice which is located on the fringes of the mass movements in the U.S. and which replaces education around the concrete contradictions of American society (those within the bourgeoisie, in the union movement, and those which appear in the struggles of oppressed nations and national minorities) by sloganeering and long revolutionary-style speeches. This is quite in keeping with the dogmatism of the Joint Statement. It is not surprising that a group that does not see the coming to power of Reagan as an important change in the policy of the U.S. imperialist bourgeoisie should feel that it is contributing to the development of revolutionary strategy in imperialist countries by stating: “The October Revolution remains the fundamental reference point for Marxist-Leninist strategy and tactics.”
The October (Russian) revolution took place in a country where the proletariat represented less than 10% of the population, in a country which was hardly out of feudalism, at a time when the bourgeois democratic revolution had just been victorious politically and in a world situation where imperialists were at war for the first time. That situation is quite evidently, strategically and tactically, different in many respects to the situation in a country where the proletariat represents the vast majority of the population, where the peasantry is almost non-existent, where the bourgeois revolution was carried out more than 200 years ago, where the labour movement has been dominated for a very long time by the labour aristocracy, etc., etc. The greatest harm we can do to Lenin’s “thought” is to distort in this way its concrete revolutionary content, to mechanically apply things he has stated, or what Soviet workers accomplished in a fundamentally different situation.
The same goes for Mao Zedong Thought. No matter how great the Cultural Revolution was, it did not, and perhaps it could not, resolve all the problems about the building of socialism. Is China not clearly today on the path to capitalism? We are left with the task of finding a scientific explanation for historical events. The way to do this is not to look for scapegoats, a series of traitors and liquidators, as has been current practice for too long within the International Communist Movement. Nor is it to look for saviours who have already solved problems in our stead.
From words to action
Voie Proletarienne criticizes the Joint Statement for having eliminated the debate on the true differences which exist and for having emptied Mao’s contributions of their concrete revolutionary content? This gives the impression that their approach might be a more materialist one, one which breaks with dogmatism. What in reality is the situation? One of the criticisms made by Voie Proletarienne is that the Joint Statement grouping doesn’t go any further than to take a negative attitude to the national question. Voie Proletarienne is in favour of the equality of nations, but then they add that that is still within the framework of bourgeois democracy and “the proletariat struggles for a much more grandiose objective… the freely agreed to merger of nations and their disappearance under communism” (Voie Proletarienne text, pg. 9). The question is a very pertinent one, not only in relationship to national liberation struggles but also in imperialist countries themselves.
But what does Voie Proletarienne mean in practice? We know that in France there are large numbers of immigrant workers, many of which come from countries which are under the neo-colonial domination of France. Several organizations have sprung up or have developed in the immigrant communities to work at destroying the neo-colonial power in their homeland. Yet, Voie Proletarienne refuses to recognize these organizations as foreign revolutionary organizations, such is notably the case with the organization Echc Hool.a of Tunisia) on the basis that all immigrant worker must work for revolution in France and join the French Marxist-Leninist organizations. Is that a practical application of what Voie Proletarienne calls the “freely agreed to merger of nations under communism”? If so, Voie Proletarienne’s grand appeals to oppose dogmatism don’t mean much.
Here is another example. In spite of the superficial nature of the public statement, Voie Proletarienne states that it is “not breaking from or opposing the movement towards unity that is apparent among world communist forces today” (pg. 12). But what do they mean by “world communist forces”? Once again, they refer only to those forces which recognize the contributions of the Great Proletarian Revolution and Mao Zedong. And what about other forces which do not believe that the struggle for unity should start from the recognition of one principle or another, whether Mao’s or anyone else’s, but rather that it should proceed from the concrete analysis of concrete situations utilizing Marxism-Leninism as a science and debates between organizations on their differences in views?
The fact is that Voie Proletarienne is not taking these forces into consideration any more now than it was before. Dogmatism is often the twin brother of sectarianism. The Joint Public Statement of 13 organizations which believe they can resolve the crisis in the International Communist Movement by upholding the principle of Mao Zedong Thought illustrates, if such a demonstration is indeed necessary, that this initiative leads nowhere. Voie Proletarienne and the other organizations which have upheld this approach have yet to break with the erroneous underlying assumption upon which that initiative is founded.
woodsmokeblog 