by Ludo Martens
In his report to the 24th Congress of the CPSU in 1971, Brezjnev formulated the theory
of "non-capitalist development" in the ex-colonial countries which had gained
formal independence in the last decades. Like a marble statue dedicated to Brezjnevism
weathering wind and rain, this theory survived 15 years of turmoil and rebellion in Africa
and Asia.
What follows now is the complete account of this theory as explained by the authors
Tchirkine and Youdine .
"The formation of young nations has always been the result of a revolution of
national liberation, no matter if this was a violent revolution not." (p.4).
"Those countries which succeeded in liberating themselves from the oppression of
colonial rule can only reach real social progress through non-capitalist development and
socialist orientation (...) Non-capitalistic development does not ensure an immediate
transition to socialism. But it is the start of a social-economical development that
creates the necessary base to form a socialist society (p.5).""A state with a
socialist orientation is a class organisation which acts in the interests of narrowly
defined classes and social strata." The authors cite a few officials from Congo,
South Yemen and Birma to conclude: "In this way, the state with a socialist
orientation is the instrument of the Revolutionary and Democratic Dictatorship of the
People (p.11)."
"The Revolutionary and Democratic Dictatorship of the People does not necessarily
mean that total power would be in the hands of the most progressive revolutionary forces.
On the contrary, one of the social foundations of power would be formed by petty bourgeois
classes, supported by part of the non-working owners class, groups which will ultimatly
resist the reinforcement of revolutionary change. The special nature of the balance
between classes obliges the workers to share power with owners and/or other non-working
classes. But even in those conditions, the state with a socialist orientation remains in
the first place the representative of the dictatorship of the people, of which the
peasants make up a large part (p.12). The state stands very close indeed to the
Revolutionary and Democratic Dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasants and closely
reflect the specific conditions of recently liberated countries (p.16).
The authors then proudly continue to cite proofs for their statements: Tanzania declared
itself "State of labourers and peasants", the Republic of Congo "expects to
install the dictatorship of the proletariat", the Egyptian constitution describes its
"democratic socialist regime", the Syrian version praises its "democratic,
socialist state of the people" and Birma is called "an independent socialist
workers' state" (p.16-17).
"In a state with socialist orientation the economy has not only a anti-feudal and an
anti-imperialistic reflex, there is also an anti-capitalistic trend, be it only partly.
The essential contents of this anti-capitalistic trend is the creation, by the state, of
the conditions for the transition to socialism and new production relations. These
conditions are created in first instance by the development of social ownership of the
means of production in its two main appearances, state-ownership and cooperative
ownership, secondly by the systematic restriction and elimination of foreign and local
capital and further by the introduction of a state plan (p.22)."
The authors treat us with some examples of the "anti-capitalistic tendency" such
as Egypt, where the state owns an estimated 85% of the means of production or Algeria,
where the figure is 80%; In Syria the state is responsible for 90% of the national
production and in Irak the state accounts for 70% of production (p.26).
One has to admire the authors for their fluent use of marxist terminology to violate every
marxist principle known until now. This use of marxist-like words and expressions to
distort the real meaning of the learnings of Marx and Lenin is at the base of revisionism.
Marxist terms which describe clearly identified facts, are being wrought to explain social
phenomena, with which they have nothing to do whatsoever.
What is more, this text reveals that the authors are viewing the Third World with the eyes
of a super-power that has swapped communism for chauvinism. In their text we cannot detect
the slightest interest for the real revolutionary work among the masses of the countries
concerned. There is no trace of any experience or opinion of from communists who fought,
independently, in the field. The numerous data that are casually accepted as
"facts" in the text were never substantiated by a thorough materialistic study
of the existing reality; they were based on a painstaking analysis of... the constitution
of the countries in question.
Right from the start Tchirkine and Youdine abuse the concept of revolution by applying
the word for every decolonisation process, even if it concerns a political reformation
initiated or dominated by imperialism. Lenin defines revolution as the violent destruction
of an old political superstructure (p.126). In several colonies, imperialism had become
aware of the necessity to grant formal independence and took precautions to avoid
widespread violence by the people. In this manner it was possible to keep the political
super-structure intact, bringing only a few cosmetic, neo-colonial changes into the
system.
Lenin himself warns about the abuse of the word revolution. "Our own movement, he
writes, can degenerate from a real revolutionary movement to a revolutionary movement of
words" (p.103). And as revolutionary struggle begins to break out in Russia in 1905
"bourgeois liberals realize the necessity to recognise the revolution. In fact they
loath struggle and revolution, but the circumstances force them to accept the reality of
the revolution because they have no choice." (p.124). Bearing this in mind Lenin took
pains to clarify the contents of the word revolution: victorious peoples' rising, a
provisional revolutionary government, arming of the masses, proletarian struggle against
the monarchy and the aristocracy by merciless elimination of the enemies of freedom and by
violent repression of their resistence without any compromise to the damned heritage of
feodality (p.20, p.51, p.54-55). Entirely in conflict with Lenin's analysis, the authors
award the enlightment of "revolution" to crown the regimes of Egypt, Syria,
Iraq, Somalia, Birma, Algeria, Tanzania.
During the anti-Tsarist revolution (in many aspects comparable to the anti-colonial
revolution) Lenin began to define the character of the struggle: a democratic revolution
which, in its essential economic goals, remained within the bourgeois framework. A radical
victory of this revolution would pave the way for "spontaneous" widespread
development of capitalist enterprise. It will also create new contradictions and struggle
between bourgeoisy and proletariat (p.21). "The complete victory of the present
revolution will signify the end of the democratic revolution and the beginning of a hard
struggle for a socialist revolution (...) The meaning itself of the expression
"democratic" dictatorship is a reflection of the limited historical character of
the present revolution and the necessity of a new struggle in the context of a new
socio-political environment" (p.128).
The Russian authors on the other hand deformed twice the character of the struggle in the
old colonies. First they introduced, in a reformist manner, the decolonisation as an
achievement of the revolution. Next, by talking about the "dictatorship of the
workers" and by using hollow phrases they wiped out the borders between bourgeois
(democratic) and proletarian (socialist) revolution.
Lenin reviews the different political tendencies within the classes competing in the
struggle: the liberal progressive bourgeoisy tries peaceful appeasement with the regime in
power which should bring it maximum influence (p.15-16); the peasent class aims for
"land and freedom" in a radical revolution within the framework of a capitalist
economy (p.110, p.95); the proletariat wants the radical democratic revolution it deems a
necessary step towards socialist revolution (p.97). "The proletariat must bring the
democratic revolution to an end by tying the semi-proletarian masses to their cause and
energeticaly organizing and leading the wavering peasants and the petty bourgeois to the
violent break up of bourgeois rule (p.97).
Contrary to Lenin's analysis, revisionism tries to obscure the fundamental antagonism that
exists between proletariat and bourgeoisy in the course of a national revolution,
antagonism which rapidly erupts into outright hostility once victory has been celebrated.
Quite arbitrarily revisionism hails the decolonisation as the ascent of a "democratic
dictatorship of labourers, peasants, petty bourgeoisy and national bourgeoisy", where
the bourgeoisy is reduced to a supporting role. By spreading rethoric like
"dictatorship of the workers", revisionism falsifies the real economic contents
of a revolution which is essentially bourgeois. It obscures the intentions of the national
and the petty bourgeois classes which dominate the new regime, to make an agreement with
imperialism.
Lenin thinks that the working class can play a leading role in a democratic revolution on
condition that it is led by a communist party which strictly adheres to marxist principles
(p.14). The party concerned must preserve its political and ideological independence; it
must make a correct analysis of the objectives and tactics of the different social classes
and work out its own revolutionary programme without succombing to influence from
reformist tendencies within the bourgeoisy. Throughout the different stages of the
struggle, the communist party must always keep in mind the end objective: the socialist
revolution.
Revisionism does exactly the opposite thing, calling several bourgeois regimes in the
Third World "Dictatorship of the workers", even in cases where a communist party
doesn't exist and where the working class is non-existent as a class aspiring its own
objectives.
As stated above, Lenin does not rule out participation of the workers' party in a
provisional government brought forward by a peoples' rising. But he again clearly defines
the objective of such participation: "to wage total war against
contra-revolution" and "to defend the specific interests of the working
class". Even under those conditions he stresses "the duty to maintain the
pressure on the provisional government. To keep up this pressure coming from the base, the
proletariat must be armed and led by the social democracy (i.e. the communists) as in
revolutionary times things tend to develop rapidly into open civil war.
By decorating bourgeois and petty bourgeois regimes with romantic names
("Revolutionary Democratic Dictatorship", "Dictatorship of Workers and
Peasants") Sowjet revisionism encourages communist parties to participate in
governments, where they only play a minor role, dominated by the party which holds the
real power like in Syria and Iraq.
Lenin unmasked the illusions of populists and social revolutionaries who thought that a
radical peasant revolution would gradually evolve into some sort of socialism.
"Marxists are clearly convinced of the bourgeois character of the Russian revolution.
What does this mean? The mere fact of a more democratic political regime and the necessary
social and economic development of Russia are no guarantee whatsoever for the abolishment
of capitalism or doubts about bourgeois domination. On the contrary, such a revolution
clearly prepares the way for rapid and widespread development of capitalism in Russia for
the first time (p.42-43).
Revisionism wants us to believe that the state arising from the decolonisation process
develops an "anti-capitalistic tendency" because it owns a large part of the
national industry. But Engels wrote even in 1877 that "the capitalistic property of
the means of production is not abolished by state ownership" if society itself
continues to be ruled by capitalistic logic. "Recently we saw the appearance of a
false socialism which hailed every form of state interference, even that of Bismarck,
Napoleon or Metternich, as socialist". And Engels continues: "the state can work
out a planned economy (...) to the great and only profit of the capitalists"
(p.155-156).
The theory of the state with socialist orientation has fundamental consequences
for the concepts developed within the Party. Professor Guerman Oussov, Doctor in Social
Science, wrote a small study about African revolutionary parties in 1988. It is a real
beauty from which we quote : "In Asia and Africa, one can define a party as
revolutionary when it is a workers' party concerned with the anti-imperialist struggle,
which has a programme for revolutionary change of society and its development towards
socialism and which has the potential to make the masses conscious, to organize them and
to mobilize them to realize this programme" (p.14).
Those parties "represent the marxist-leninist vanguard of the working class as well
as the progressive forces of national and revolutionary democracy" (p.14). "The
development of revolutionary parties takes several stages. Parties of the "National
Front" type, national democratic parties, are often the original form. Those parties
unite almost the total adult population. Anti-imperialist nationalism is generally
speaking the ideological base. As society develops, those national democratic parties
become more class conscious. Their development is dominated by the relation and the
struggle between two main tendencies. The influence of the workers grows stronger and the
parties evolve to revolutionary democratic parties. The ideological base of those parties
connect elements of scientific socialism with anti-imperialistic nationalism" (p.15).
"The third stage in the development of revolutionary parties is the appearance of
parties as vanguard of the workers. They form an alliance of working class with peasants,
semi- or pré- proletarian classes and working intelligentia. Petty bourgeoisy, army
officers and civil servants are also represented but political and ideological key
positions are occupied by representatives of the working classes. They share the same
social base as the revolutionary democratic parties but internal class relations are
different. They stress the ties between working class and the peasant class" (p.16).
"From their activity, we can discern characteristics: marxism-leninism becomes the
ideological base, the principles of democratic centralism are built into the party
structure. Those parties are now the leading force in all mass organisations, they are the
force which propels their country towards socialism. At this stage they also develop
stronger ties with the international communist movement" (p.19).
"The transformation of democratic and revolutionary parties and vanguard labour
parties into marxist-leninist parties is one of the most likely roads to the development
of communist parties. Objective features which accelerate the process are: a vigorous
struggle for the realisation of the national-democratic revolution, the encouragement of
anti-imperialistic social-economic changes, participation of the working masses in the
political process, industrialisation, development of the working class. As a subjective
factor we note the work done by marxists" (p.23).
Let us now have a closer look at the political reality which this piece of art describes
analysing the development of a marxist-leninist party.
Many Asiatic and African countries have known their anti-feudal and anti-colonial
movements or revolutions against internal or external forces preventing development of a
national capitalism. In many countries in Asia and Africa there were mass movements and
rebellions against neo-colonialism.
The political forces leading these upheavels, revolutions or movements were aware that
they were struggling against imperialism, i.e. international capitalism. They tended to
decorate their objectives with the phrases of the ideology which is the foremost in the
struggle against international capitalism: socialism. The mass of workers in those
countries underwent decades of repression and exploitation from foreign capitalism. Their
untenable position drove them to radical solutions. Those who want to win the hearts and
minds of the masses have much to gain in formulating their objectives in a radical and
socialist manner.
The bourgeoisy and the petty bourgeoisy who rise to power during the democratic and
national revolutions need the wide support of the masses, as long as they have to
strengthen their own economical base. During the period in which they build up the
economical structures and the state organs which embody their class interests, they employ
opportunist intellectuals to camouflage those activities with revolutionary and marxist
rethoric.
While building up their economic and political base, the bourgeoisy and that fraction of
the petty bourgeoisy can appeal in a formal manner and with purely demagogic objectives ,
to scientific socialism and the realisations of socialism which gained a large prestige
throughout the world.
Let us now analyse from a political an ideological viewpoint, the proposals made to form a
marxist-leninist party, starting from a bourgeois nationalist movement.
First, to realise this magic transformation, the CPSU must abandon the class principle,
the essence of marxism. To make things somewhat easier, it begins with a definition of the
revolution in which the class principle has disappeared. According to Guerman Oussov,
revolution is the anti-imperialist struggle, the introduction of socialist inspired
reforms and the mobilisation of the masses to get those objectives realised. But the
anti-imperialist revolution can be organised and led by the bourgeoisy itself or even by
feudal forces (Iranian revolution), by the petty bourgeoisy (the Algerian revolution) and
last but not least by the proletariat (the Chinese revolution). Ever since "The
Communist Manifesto" appeared, in 1848, communists have known that there are such
phenomena as feudal socialism, bourgeois socialism and petty bourgeois socialism and
furthermore, that scientific socialism rose from a bitter struggle between these
ideologies. Orientating society "towards socialism" is thus a hollow and
misleading phrase. Each social class waging an anti-imperialist struggle, appeals to the
people and mobilises the masses for its own ideals and objectives.
To make a revolution which is "above all classes", the CPSU creates a
revolutionary party which fends for "the interests of the working class (mentioned in
first instance), the peasants, the petty bourgeoisy and the national patriotic
bourgeoisy" (p.15). This trap is all too obvious. A party representing all those
interests together is a bourgeois party, according to marxist analysis. This is because
the character of a party is made by the class which leads and organises the party
politically and ideologically. The presence of parts of other classes does not change
anything to that fact, because the essence is that the others accept the political
leadership of that one given political class.
A second important element in the analysis of these revisionist theories is the fact that
the CPSU makes use of so-called eclectism. Eclectism is the term used for the bourgeois
practice of "taking the best of all ideologies" and throwing them together. In
avoiding the problem of the real character of a revolutionary party, the CPSU defines the
revolutionary party as a party in which there is a "faction of workers and
peasants" cooperating with factions of the bourgeoisy, all working peacefully
together towards their respective goals. In the party of the "national front"
type, the influence of the workers' faction gains terrain and "elements of scientific
socialism" appear more and more to "unite" with the original nationalist
ideology. In time, out of this eclectic chaos of different ideas and interests, scientific
socialism appears as the winner and the original revolutionary bourgeois party becomes a
revolutionary party of the proletariat.
Thirdly. The abondoning of class analysis and the use of eclectic philosofies lead to the
denial of the antagonistic struggle between bourgeois and petty bourgeois ideology on the
one hand and proletarian interests on the other.
This is precisely the point where we can easily establish the complete break of Brezjnev's
CPSU with the party concept of Lenin. The Bolsjevist Party itself arose out of the
unavoidable conflict between marxist ideology and bourgeois revolutionary ideas. That is
what Lenin wrote about in "What to do?".
In "What to do?", Lenin points out that the foundation of a communist party
begins with the stubborn defence of marxist principles and methods against all other forms
of revolutionary thinking. "Our party only begins its formation", he wrote in
1902, "and it has in no way yet eliminated other revolutionary tendencies which can
let the movement deviate to the right. Lately we have seen the rising of social democratic
movements. In these circumstances, a mistake, in first instance seemingly futile, can lead
to very deplorable consequenses indeed" (p.376).
"The problem can be brought down to one question: bourgeois ideology or socialist
ideology. There just is no middle way. That is why every weakness, any deviation of
socialist ideology also means a reinforcement of bourgeois ideology"
(p.391)."[in Germany] the social democratic ideology gained the upper hand but it
will only keep its position by a never weakening struggle against all other
ideologies" (p.393).
Lenin fought not only against the revolutionary ideologies of the petty bourgeoisy like
anarchism or peasant radicalism. Within the marxist party he had to struggle against
mensjeviks, who presented essential petty bourgeois concepts, which had been dismissed by
Marx and Engels years before, as "creative developments of marxism" (p.361). As
a conclusion we can put down that the essence of Lenin 's concept of a marxist
revolutionary party is the clear demarcation of authentic marxist elements by a
"relentless criticism" of all bourgeois and petty bourgeois tendencies (p.375).
With a trick from its magic box, Breznjev's CPSU, actually asserts the opposite.
"When a relentless struggle without compromise takes place between bourgeois ideology
and scientific socialism, then the ideological relations between supporters of scientific
socialism and national and revolutionary democrats become very different in character
(p.52). Just those revolutionary democrats who support a bourgeois or petty bourgeois
ideology are the descendants of mensjeviks, anarchists and peasant radicalism against
which Lenin waged a relentless ideological war.
"It is true", concede Tchirkine and Youdine,"that in the ideology of
democratic revolutionary parties the concepts of scientific socialism are mixed with ideas
of socialism for the whole nation, petty bourgeois theories and, in several countries,
religious theories, ending up with a rather strange cocktail. But the democratic
revolutionary party tries to give a progressive impuls to all these non-marxist theories,
and the weight of scientific socialism gains continually" (p.78). It is clear however
that scientific socialism will only gain ground as the party cadres succeed in criticising
and destroying those universal socialist, bourgeois or religious ideas. In reality the
ideas of the larger part of democratic party cadres remain dominated by reactionary and
bourgeois thinking. "Scientific socialism" is often only a thin layer of varnish
not even succesful in hiding the real contents of the total party programme.
To illustrate the ideological rapprochement between democratic revolutionaries and marxist
leninists, the CPSU cites the Algerian National Charter of the FLN that confirms that
"the socialist ethics" and "the way of thinking and acting" has to
change; or the TANU party in Tanzania which wants to "learn the lessons out of the
experiences of Marx and Lenin" (p.55-56).
In fact the CPSU ignores all revolutionary experiences of the international communist
movement in the colonies and the neo-colonies. In 1924 Sun Tat-sen 's Kuomintang was a
revolutionary party which organized the peasant masses and which led an armed opposition
against feudal war-lords and imperialism. The Chinese communist party formed a front with
the Kuomintang and despatched a part of its cadres to work within that front, but the
party strictly adhered to its political and structural independence. When the class
struggle developed in the cities and in the country, the Kuomintang chose for the
imperialist side and massacred a large number of communists and revolutionaries. But
meanwhile, working within the united front, the CCP had used her position to extend its
influence under the peasant masses. In this way the party had gained an enlarged base from
which it could defend itself in the military conflict with the Kuomintang. The Chinese
communist party has been able to lead the revolution because it always kept its
independence and because it never had any illusions about reforming a democratic party
into a marxist-leninist party.
Finally let us take a closer look at the political line which the USSR followed on the
base of this analysis of parties in the Third World. The revisionist line of Chroestjov
and Brezjnev sees the character of imperialism in a naive way and claims that reformist
peoples' movements in the Third World can rid themselves of imperialistic domination. Its
own reformist concepts took the CPSU into over-rating the revolutionary significance of
the actions and theories of bourgeoisy and petty bourgeoisy. The USSR choses for a policy
of alliance with the nationalistic governments of the Third World for several reasons.
This alliance policy on state level has its consequences for its stand versus the parties
which lead these states. The CPSU brews pseudo-marxist theoretical analysis to serve its
own national policy.
Using "education", the CPSU hopes to bring the bourgeoisy, which leads the
so-called revolutionary parties, to sowjet marxism. This education consists of small
eclectic reforms like the intelligently conceived transformation of bourgeois concepts
into populist views, followed by concepts of workers and peasants to end with the firm
principles of the always victorious proletariat. Without disturbing the ideological
convictions of bourgeoisy or petty bourgeoisy, the revisionist educators lead their world
towards scientific socialism without further ado. They placate their pupils, appease them
and let them believe their "humanism" and "socialism" differs in no
way from the scientific concepts of the great thinkers and heroes of oppressed peoples,
Marx and Lenin.
The analysis of the revolutionary parties in Africa demonstrates that the CPSU has broken
completely with the scientific method of historical materialism. The practical analysis of
practical situations is the soul of marxism. In these writings we don't find a trace about
the experience of the parties concerned. It is simply impossible to evaluate this or that
party in a correct manner without studying the economical presence of imperialism and the
policy towards the nationalist forces in the country.
It is impossible to judge a party without a study of the social changes within the
compradore bourgeoisy and the bureaucratic class and in the ranks of the national
bourgeoisy and the small bourgeoisy. The marxist researcher has to analyse the attitudes
of those classes towards the party in power. One has to know the situation of the
peasants, the changes in the social fabric, the material situation of the working class,
its degree of organisation, its level of consciousness etc. It is against this wide
background that the character of revolutionary parties has to be evaluated.
In addition every country has its own political history. Each revolutionary party in power
originated in a country in which there was a political struggle in the anti-imperialist
camp and where this party had taken a position in this struggle. A party develops during
an ideological struggle with leftist forces and even internal strife, all of which shape
the party into the form we know today. But sowjet revisionists do not bother at all to
take this into account; we don't find a trace of it in their writings about the party.
From their point of view historical materialism is not an instrument of analysis, no
scalpel with which we can analyse a complex situation. To them it is only an ideology in
the worst sense of the word, a false consciousness consisting of values, concepts and
ideas which unite a class or a leading social group. It is a mutilated and falsified
vision of reality which is forced upon all those who think differently.
"The revolutionary party", Guerman Oussov writes, " makes use of two
fundamental documents to develop its activities: the programme and the party statutes. All
party members should act, according to the rules laid down in those documents (p.36). But
in Africa the contents of these texts are only too often bourgeois deceptions and they
have very little to do with the real way in which interactions between party members take
place. Oussov, who defies every analysis of reality, lavishly throws around programmes and
statutes to convince us about the progress of those parties towards real marxism-leninism.
The author tells us that the constitution of the United Party of National Independance of
Zambia states that its objective is "the transformation of capitalism, over socialism
to humanism, to make an end to imperialism, colonialism and neo-colonialism, fascism and
racism on the one hand and to end the misery, the hunger, analfabetism and the
exploitation of man by man"(p.28). These words are typical for Christian ideology
which is heavily opposed to class struggle and marxism. Oussov does not tell us a thing
about the economical, social and political reality in Zambia which is hidden by these
empty phrases.
Oussov tries to convince us that the rules laid down in the statutes of a communist party
are being followed closer and closer within the vanguard parties of the workers. "As
mentioned the foundation congress of the Workers' Party of Ethiopia, criticism and
self-criticism is necesary for the reinforcement of the party which is the expression of
the interests of the working class and of all workers" (p.50). This means nothing
less than a vulgar defence of the military which hold the power in Ethiopia. The CPSU
bestows the "revolutionary parties" with all sorts of marxist-leninist qualities
and prerogatives for the simple (and the only) reason that they are the party in power. A
marxist will want to know if the Derg of Ethiopia really impliments the leninist principle
in a correct manner. Only the concrete analysis of its development can learn that. And as
always with Oussov, we don't learn a thing about that matter. The moment the Derg, the
Revolutionary Party of the Ethiopian People, took the power, the PRPE was a
marxist-leninist party which dominated widely the student movement, the intellectuals and
the unions in Ethiopia. From the beginning this party unmasked the Derg regime as a
militarist, anti-populist and anti-marxist regime. During the red terror organised by
Menghistu and the Meison party in 1976, most members of the PRPE were murdered. Six
members of the Derg, among whom Teferi Bante, were executed after accusations of
cooperating with the PRPE. The Meison party, mainly operating outside Ethiopia where it
held close contact with revisionist communist parties, established itself in Ethiopia
thanks to an alliance with the Derg. While the party helped the Derg to make be accepted
in circles of leftist bourgeoisy, it stood in the forefront of the war against the PRPE.
The Meison party, which wanted to use the Derg to become the leading marxist-leninist
party in the country, was obliterated during the second half of 1977 by the men of
Menghistu. In the end the military of the Derg founded the "Party of the Ethiopian
Workers".
Without any analysis whatsoever of this violent political struggle in the past how is it
possible to claim that the Party of Ethiopian Workers is "applying criticism and
self-criticism" and makes "marxism-leninism its guide of action" (p.54)?
The way in which the CPSU approaches the revolutionary parties of Africa demonstrates how
it mutilates marxism-leninism and deforms it to an idealistic doctrine. "The most
important ideological work of a party", writes Guerman Oussov,"is the spreading
of the ideas of scientific socialism and to convince the masses of the correctness of
those ideas. The propaganda and agitation will be scientific as it bases itself on the
theory of scientific socialism as created by Marx and Lenin. The ideological education of
the masses will be more efficient as the propaganda for the ideals of scientific socialism
and for the realisations of real socialism is more accessible, more convincing and closer
to the daily life of the workers" (p.56-57).
All this loose talk shows the idealism in the thinking of the CPSU, its break away from
materialism and dialectics, its fundamental mistakes in the handling of revolutionary
work. For marxists, the base of their political thinking is shaped by social practice with
the masses. Their revolutionary practice is analysed and guided within the frame of
marxism-leninism. The goal of marxist-leninist thinking is practice, the development of a
concrete political line. The goal was never "to spread the ideas of scientific
socialism", but to apply the universal principles of marxism-leninism in the concrete
and unique practice of revolutionary work in one's own country. In Ethiopia, the Derg
murdered the members of Meison who had helped in their turn to exterminate the PRPE. All
three claimed to spread the ideas of marxism-leninism. For marxist-leninists it is
essential to know which classes were reinforced by the specific practice which each of
these forces developed in the name of the ideals of scientific socialism.
The idealism, the way it is propagated as marxism-leninism has been criticised for years
by communist parties in the Third World but apparently the CPSU, which likes to proclaim
its own views to the revolutionary parties in the Third World, doesn't take any of their
experiences into consideration at all. In the small countries of the Third World, the
devastating effects of this idealistic approach have been most visible. A communist party
has to take pains to consider different and even opposite aspects of revolutionary
developments if it wants to contribute to the international communist movement. The CPSU
refuses to do so out of chauvinism as the old and experienced party.
As a reference we include the point of view brought foreward by comrade Kim Il Sung in
1955.
"What are we doing? We do not make revolution in a foreign country, but we make
revolution in Korea. All ideological work must be subordinate to the interests of the
Korean revolution. If we study the history of the CPSU or the Chinese revolution or if we
study the universal principles of marxism-leninism, we only do so in order to complete our
revolution in a correct manner. We must study carefully our own reality and we must learn
to know it very well. If not, we will not be able to solve the new problems we come up
against in a creative way that is in line with our own reality. The form of our power must
be in line with the specific charcteristics of our country. Is that form of power
identical to that of other socialist countries? No, that is not so.
"Several comrades guzzle up marxism-leninist in one gulp in stead of digesting it and
learning to use it. It is perfectly logical then that they can't take revolutionary
initiatives. We must stand by the marxist-leninist principles irrevocably and apply them
in a creative way, according to the concrete conditions in our country and our nation.
Marxism-leninism is no dogma, it is a guide for action and a creative doctrine.
Marxism-leninism can only give proof of its invincible power if it is applied in a
creative way in line with the concrete situation in every country. If we apply in a
mechanical manner, the experiences of foreign countries, thereby ignoring the history and
the traditions of our people and without regard for the reality and the level of
consciousness of our people, then this will lead to dogmatic mistakes and damage the
revolution. Such a practice cannot be in line with marxism-leninism, nor with
internationalism nly give proof of its invincible power if it i:power if it is applied in
a crea
Last, but not least the approach of the USSR towards revolutionary parties in the Third
World also demonstrates the dominating tendencies in its foreign policy. The idealistic
view, which sees marxism-leninism as the elementary principle and its concepts as eternal
truths, cuts communist parties loose from their roots: revolutionary actions among the
masses. Consequently the idealistic vision as interpreted by those who think they know
best leads automatically to a blind following of the party which is the strongest or has
the most experience. The CPSU has encouraged this phenomenon to develop its dominance over
the international communist movement. This leads to a remarkable thesis of our author:
"The formation of communist parties developing from revolutionary democratic parties
and vanguard parties of workers is completely justified from the moment socialism is
becoming the principal factor in world evolution, thanks to the force which extends from
the example of socialist countries and thanks to the prestige and the growing influence of
the international communist movement (p.23).
But the transition of a petty bourgeois party to a communist party, or more correctly, the
breaking with petty bourgeois ideology and the foundation of a new communist party can
only be justified by the experience of the masses and the organised militants and cadres.
Out of the evaluation of the class conflicts and the political confrontations can the
necessity of a different party be concluded. But to justify the transformation of a
bourgeois party into a marxist party because of the might and the prestige of the CPSU is
totally wrong. Because it is evident that some factions of a bourgeois party will plead
for just such a "transition", not on the base of their political work with the
masses or the correctness of their revolutionary practice, but because they see this as a
method to dominate the national front (often by military force) by forming an alliance
with a foreign power which can supply the political and military means and the ideological
justification; a power which itself aims for world domination.
If the CPSU talks about the ideological work that revolutionary parties in Africa must
organise, it in fact aims for the recognition by those parties of the political and
ideological leadership of the CPSU. This is emphasized very strongly: "The experience
in the ideological work of the CPSU raises more and more interest among African
revolutionaries (p.58). "The ideological education of the masses is more efficient as
the propaganda about the realisations of real socialism is more convincing"(p.57).
"The international significance of the experiences of the CPSU as a pioneer of
reconstruction and systematic correction of socialism, is recognised today by
revolutionaries all over the world." Proof of this is given by citing a declaration
of Menghistu from 1984! (p.9).
Tchirkine and Youdine: "The State with a socialist orientation. The experience of the
third world countries." Ed. Progres, Moscou, 1974
Lenin, Two tactics of social-democracy
Engels Friedrich: Sientific and utopic socialism, in Marx-Engels, Oeuvres choisis en deux
volumes, Ed.Progres, Moscou, 1955.
Guerman Oussov: The revolutionary party, avant-garde of the workers. Ed. Novosti, Moscou,
1986.
:djoutché" in our revolution, Pyong ngyan, 1980; On the elimination of dogmatism..,
28 december 1955.
Workers' Party of Belgium (WPB)
171 Boulevard Lemonnier
B-1000 Brussels, Belgium
Tel: + 32 2 513 77 60
Fax: + 32 2 513 98 31
E-mail wpb@wpb.be