Revisionism and Capitalist Restoration: Contribution to the debate on the line of Freedom Road Socialist Organization

Some interesting discussion of revisionism and antirevisionism has come up lately, particularly in relation to the position put forward by Freedom Road Socialist Organization [Marxist-Leninist]. (People are using brackets these days it seems to distinguish by ideology the two groups that use the same name, the other being FRSO [Left Refoundationist]).

First Pottawatomie Creek (henceforth PC) struck at the line of the Marxist-Leninist FRSO (the publishers of Fight Back! Newspaper) with his article, FRSO [Fight Back!]'s Decent into Revisionism? to which Left Spot (LS) responded polemically in Debate on FRSO and Revisionism. Celtic Fire (CF) chimed in with Understanding Revisionism in an attempt to reopen the debate.

I'll summarize the debate thus far as I see it:

PC began by basically equating "revisionism" with not upholding the Left Refoundationists' Crisis of Socialism document, upholding the DPRK and the PRC as a socialist countries, and by referring to 1989 events in China as an attempted counter-revolution.

LS took note of these central points, and in my view, did pretty well at addressing them in his article.

Regarding the "Crisis of Socialism," LS addresses the defeatism of the statement.

While the statement makes some good points, its overall verdict on socialism in the 20th century is defeatist and is fundamentally wrong. The worst error of the Crisis statement is that it sums up all the efforts of socialist revolution in the 20th century as an overall failure. I quote: “overall the experience of building socialism in the Soviet Union must be summed up as a failure. All subsequent socialist revolutions have drawn to a great extent from the Soviet model, and the crisis of socialism is not confined to the Soviet Union.” This is straight-up wrong, and is drenched in the confusion and defeatism that much of the U.S. left succumbed to around 1991 when the statement was first adopted.

Regarding the socialist countries, LS notes some confusion regarding the Left Refoundationist line on the question.

And if they believe that Cuba is socialist [I understand there is a resolution put forward by FRSO [LR] to that effect], I would ask what FRSO [Left Refoundationist] sees as the distinction between the political economy of Cuba and that of, say, Vietnam, and why one is allegedly socialist and the other is allegedly capitalist.

And regarding the 1989 counter-revolutionary events at Tiananmen Square:

As for Tiananmen in 1989, would anyone deny that there were forces prominent, including some of the leadership, in the 1989 student movement that were aiming for Western-style capitalism? And that forces within the Chinese Communist Party that supported moving toward Western-style capitalism were working very closely with, and supporting, the protests?

He summed it all up, saying:

FRSO [ML] has successfully steered away from the many varieties of revisionism that have confounded many other groups. I think that compared to the alternatives, FRSO [ML] is the most advanced revolutionary organization in the US. FRSO [ML] is grounded in proletarian internationalism and Marxism-Leninism, incorporating key contributions of Mao Zedong and the Chinese revolution. FRSO [ML] engages in dynamic mass work using the mass line better than anyone else on the US left (to be fair, FRSO [Left Refoundationist] has some mass work I’m familiar with that is also very good). FRSO [ML] maintains a regular bilingual publication (Fight Back Newspaper www.fightbacknews.org) that highlights advanced experience in mass struggles around the country and world. And FRSO [ML] sees the need for Leninist organization and is building toward a new communist party to lead revolution in the US. That is not revisionism – that is Marxism-Leninism.

That's the essense of it.

Time I made my little contribution.

I think we've been messing around with secondary contradictions for too long in these debates. Lets get down to principal.

While some want to contest that while FRSO does some really good mass work, it isn't communist mass work. This seems to be, from what I've heard, because of a percieved lack of ideological content in Fight Back! I presume this to be the case, as I don't think those who have raised this have encountered much of FRSO's mass work first hand. I've worked along side some of these people for a while though, and I'd say that its very revolutionary, and that while Fight Back! may not be tailored for a petite bourgeois "communist" readership, it does well as a mass line publication to build the struggle among rank & file workers.

But that's not the crux of the matter.

Again and again on the blogs (not only the above mentioned blogs, but on Burningman's as well) we see the problem as coming down to the question of giving support to actually existing socialism. This gets to the heart of the issue: what is revisionism and what is capitalist restoration and how are they related? The crux of the argument seems to revolve around whether revisionism in command equals capitalist restoration, and further, what role is played by the dialectical relationship between relations of production and superstructure.

I would want to look at the history of the USSR and CPSU to get at this. Of course since we're talking about antirevisionism we'll have to get into the PRC and CPC as well. While it would be simple enough to use some of the documents from the Workers Party of Belgium which have dealt with the issue very throughly, I've done that here before and the trend is to dismiss them, apparently because they aren't "Maoist" in RIM sense of the term or because they don't see Mao as having surpassed Stalin. So, instead, I'll jump off of an article put out by the Communist Party of the Philippines (a group recognized around here as firm antirevisionists) in their theoretical journal Rebolusyon, number 2, series 1992, April-June. The article is "Stand for Socialism Against Modern Revisionism," by Armando Liwanag (some say this is the nom de guerre of Jose Maria Sison). It should be noted that this document represents the line of the organization at that time is approved by the Central Committee of the CP Philippines. I have the relevant issue in pamphlet form so I'll summarize the relevant passages, give page numbers, and quote where necessary.

Here (pp. 17-36) Liwanag outlines the "process of capitalist restoration" in the USSR through three stages:

The first stage is the Krushchev regime (1953-64). Ideologically this began with the secret speech to the XXth Congress of the CPSU - the slanderous diatribe against Comrade Stalin, successor of Lenin and architect of the world's first socialist society. Liwanag notes this "inspired the anticommunist forces in Poland and Hungary to carry out uprisings" and gave the green light to other Eastern European Rightists to "adopt captialist-oriented reforms." This was more or less the coming to power of an almost identical line as that put forward by Bukarin and the Right Opposition in the late 1920s and early '30s, which was defeated in the intra-party struggle by the Stalin-led party majority. This Rightist line meant putting "NEP style" reforms (liberalization and privatization of industry and agriculture and a turn toward a preference of light industry, that is, consumer goods, over heavy industry which had long been the backbone of socialist construction) in place.

Subjectivism reigns in the "blogosphere" where everyone really values their "independence" and a lot of claims and terms are thrown around like boulders without much of an attempt to scientifically think them through or back them up. "Brezhnevism" is one of those terms. Whereas it was once applied to those parties who were considered "puppets" of Soviet "Social-Imperialism" (as the Chinese called it) under Brezhnev, it is now thrown at anyone who thinks the Soviet Union during the Brezhnev period was still socialist. It is worth noting that if that is your charge (and it isn't mine), it must be leveled here against Liwanag, who considered the Breshnev regime (1964-82) to be the second of the three stages. While Liwanag states that in this period "socialism was converted fully into state monopoly capitalism" he goes on to say that the Gorbachav regime (1985-91) "marked the third and final stage in the anti-Marxist and antisocialist revisionist counterrevolution to restore captialism and bourgeois dictatorship." Here liberalization was extended from the base to the superstructure, with the legalization of the bourgeois parties, the institution of multi-party contested elections and the eventual liquidation of the CPSU and the USSR and the overturning of the socialist revolution. This marks the completion of a counter-revolution that took over 30 years.

To quote Liwanag:

To restore capitalism, the Soviet revisionist regimes had to revise the basic principles of socialist revolution and construction and to go through stages of camoflaged counterrevolution in a period of 38 years, 1953 to 1991. It is a measure of the greatness of Lenin and Stalin that their accomplishments in 36 years of socialist revolution and construction took another long period of close to four decades to dismantle. Stalin spent 20 years in socialist construction. The revisionist renegades took a much longer period of time to restore capitalism in the Soviet Union. (ibid. p.17)

This is more or less the same line on revisionism and capitalist restoration put forward by the WPB (see, for example, the International Communist Seminar 1999 Declaration, On Certain Aspects of the Struggle Against Revisionism (.doc), and Breznjev and the National Democratic Revolution for a few samples) and by the Marxist-Leninist FRSO. Revisionism is a real danger and counter-revolution is a lengthy process.

This means we are at the point where we must clearly define socialism. I'll use as a working definition the one put forward by Lenin in his Economics and Politics in the Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Theoretically, there can be no doubt that between capitalism and communism there lies a definite transition period which must combine the features and properties of both these forms of social economy. This transition period has to be a period of struggle between dying capitalism and nascent communism -- or, in other words, between capitalism which has been defeated but not destroyed and communism which has been born but is still very feeble.

Now, some (mostly Maoists, and I count myself among those who uphold Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao) argue that the instant persons come into power who take a revisionist line (who Mao and the Leftists in China called "capitalist roaders" for their desire to set the party and the state on the captialist, rather than the communist, road) capitalism is restored. In the past, we called this "Great Man Theory" and recognized it as metaphysical and unmarxist, but we'll put that aside for now (if you want a debate on Great Man Theory, please see the interventions put forth by LS in this debate on the role of Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung in North Korea that took place on Burningman's Blog). Surely we all know that the masses are the makers of history.

And this theory of instant capitalist restoration seems to discount the experience of the Cultural Revolution (GPCR) more than uphold it, contrary to what the proponents of this theory would like to have us believe. It is very clear that the call in 1966 was in fact to "bombard the headquarters" and to criticize and expose those "persons in power taking the capitalist road." The GPCR was also seen as an extension of the socialist revolution given the theory of "two line struggle" - the view that there are two roads in contradiction during the socialist transition to communism - the contradiction between captialist and communist relations of production - and thus two lines at odds with one another in the party at all times during the socialist revolution. This means that the Chinese understood this in such a way that revisionism in command did not mean an end to the socialist revolution and capitalist restoration.

So, my contribution to the debate - two questions:

Is it the case that capitalist restoration means restoration and consolidation of capitalist relations of production, or does it mean the comming to power of revisionist leadership in the party? I don't think, from a materialist point of view, that one could argue that these things are equivalent.

The question that follows this one is what does that mean for us?

View Post

On Anti-Revisionism and Unity in the Marxist-Leninist Movement

A response to the call put forward by the Communist Party of the Philippines concerning the 5oth anniversary of the anti-revisionist movement (the contemporary ML movement) and the necessity of renewing our commitment in the struggle against revisionism.

I was just reading over the Proposal for the Unification of the International Communist Movement and the fine companion piece, On Certain Aspects of the Struggle Against Revisionism put forward by the Worker's Party of Belgium and I have some thoughts. I was thinking about how Marxist-Leninists relate to each other, deal with questions of line, hold to principle while building unity in struggle, and so on. In addition to the call put forward by the CPP and two documents mentioned above, I would like to recall for the puposes of this article the document put forward by Mao Zedong in 1957, A Dialectical Approach to Inner-Party Unity.

The paper put forward by Com. Martens contians several points necessary to recognize and which ground possible discussion of this issue. Some of the main arguements really get to the heart of the line struggles that have always been at the center of the anti-revisionist movement.

First there is the question of actually-existing socialism. The line in the ML movement after the 20th Congress of the CPSU, when the Soviet Union, under Krushechov slandered the greatest Marxist-Leninist of the time, Josef Stalin, in order to subvert Leninism and begin to liberalize the economy, the party, the state, and society. As Mao Zedong said at the time, " In the Soviet Union, those who once extolled Stalin to the skies have now in one swoop consigned him to purgatory. Here in China some people are following their example. It is the opinion of the Central Committee that Stalin's mistakes amounted to only 30 per cent of the whole and his achievements to 70 per cent, and that all things considered Stalin was nonetheless a great Marxist" (On the Ten Major Relationships - for a more general treatment of the question of revisionism see my article, Socialism or Barbarism? Review of "Another View of Stalin"). Nonetheless, the Chinese tailed behind the USSR in their criticisms of the Stalin era and made many judgements without a thorough investigation. This lead to some "left" errors.

However, the line in the ML movement (in China this line was advanced by Lin Biao), was that the CPSU was thoroughly revisionist and that the USSR had suffered a coup, was now a bourgeious state, and was no longer socialist but "social-imperialist" and "social-fascist." But can a change in the socio-economic structure of society change overnight, following a political/ideological shift? Marxists do not think so. Such a theory in fact goes against Marxism-Leninism. And this brings us to one of the interesting points that Com. Martens discusses. Krushechov brought revisionism into power in the CPSU, Brezshnev advanced it, and Gorbachov consolidated it with his "restructuring." Socialism didn't "collapse" or "fail" in the USSR. In fact, the struggle against revisionism takes place in the context of what Mao Zedong called the struggle between two lines and two roads, the "two line struggle" between those who would fight for communism and those who would fight for capitalism within the socialist state.

As Lenin had made clear in his Economics and Politics in the Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, "Theoretically, there can be no doubt that between capitalism and communism there lies a definite tranition period which must combine the features and properties of both these forms of social economy. This transition period has to be a period of struggle between dying capitalism and nascent communism -- or, in other words, between capitalism which has been defeated but not destroyed and communism which has been born but is still very feeble."

So the bourgeois forces, taking root wherever they can, will fight for liberalization, for the legalization of their old parties, for space to speak their views and to subvert the proletarian state, and the CP fights for our class, to build instituions which serve our class, and to form a true democracy for our class - all without letting the bourgeoisie regain the political and economic reigns of society. The question of actually existing socialism is not principally a question of superstructure - that is, who has the political power (though it factors in, of course), the question of capitalist restoration concerns the relations of production first and formost - it is principally a question of the base. It always is. Such are the ABCs of Marxism.

But within the ML movement today there is a disagreement regarding actually existing socialism. I agree with the line of Freedom Road Socialist Organization, an important ML group which came out of the New Communist Movement during the '70s, on this issue: there are actually existing socialist countries and there is a sharp contradiction (though it is not the fundamental contradiction) between them and the imperialist powers. Other groups, such as the parties around RIM (such as the Revolutionary Communist Party USA), and the "Left Refoundationist" split group from FRSO (which still calls itself FRSO) argue that there are no actually existing socialist countries. Again, in my opinion, this is a fundamentally anti-Marxist position. Revisionism is real. It eats away at socialist countries from the inside, but it doesn't happen overnight, and I would't say that it isn't present in some socialist countries today. It is a disease, and it can be fatal, but it isn't necessarily incurable.

This is one of the main debates within the anti-revisionist movement. Whereas many "Maoist" or MLM groups have taken up this position against actually existing socialism in the name of anti-revisionism, I would hold that it is in fact a form of "left" revisionism, or at least it can be. Notice how the ideological formulation of the "Maoist" movement (MLM) deletes both Stalin and Engels from the standard list of principal theoreticians of the Marxist-Leninist movement (the CPP is not guilty of this), again in the interest of "correcting" or "going beyond" Stalin. This is a dangerous error for the anti-revisionist movement. I, personally, having studied the Stalin era thoroughly, and having analyzed the Chinese experience in detail, don't see much of a reason to place Mao over Stalin. They are in fact incomparable.

But, regardless of this, the proposal put forward by the Worker's Party of Belgium, is, I think, a solid one. Historically, Com. Martens discusses, the ML movement has been divided into four basic camps: the pro-USSR, the pro-Chinese, the pro-Albanian, and the pro-Cuban (also there are "independents"). After 1991, it is important to note, the pro-USSR camp has more or less disintegrated whereas the pro-Chinese camp has grown, largely, into todays Marxist-Leninist-Maoist groupings. The proposal put forward by the Belgian comrades, as I understand it, is that we can put aside these old debates (not debates on matters of principle, but debates such as the old "who is better?" question that you have in the Stalin-Mao-Hoxha question) in the interest of uniting around the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism. This means taking a very critical anti-revisionist position in the interest of unity-struggle-unity, and being on guard against both "Right" revisionism (or "red" liberalism - Right opportunism) as well as "Left" revisionism (or "Left" dogmatism). While these to trends of revisionism appear to be opposed they are actually comrades in arms in the dismantling of the ML movement. Some parties in the ML movement have gone a long way down both of these revisionist roads and it is not good to see. Where some are questioning "Stalinian Marxism" as the fundamental error of socialism in the 20th century, others are talking about the sort of multi-party democracy that Lenin himself always spoke against as an "advance" in the theory and practice of MLM.

All of that being said, I would like to make a proposal of my own. In light of the call from the CPP, and in the interest of unity, I propose that we discuss this question of uniting the internatinal communist movement around a Marxist-Leninist general line. We will need some common ground for discussion, so I would also suggest that we base this dicussion first on our own unity as communists, then we can discuss the documents mentioned above. All of this in the hopes of coming to a new unity. I will take this discussion very seriously, and I hope any who want to participate will do so as well. This is a pressing matter and deserves the attention of all people who would fight for the emancipation of the people of the world.

A final word.

While I don't agree entirely with the line of Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), I have immense respect for them. I think they are a very good party and I give them my full support in their just struggle. The whole world watches with bated breath as the stand on the edge of securing the power of the state in their country and founding the first new socialist country in the 21st century. That being said I will end this little article of mine with a quote from Chairman Prachanda, from his recent interview in the Hindu:

Traditionally, in the international communist movement there are two types of revisionism - right revisionism of class collaboration, and the other, dogmato-revisionism, of turning certain ideas into a dogma and getting stuck to them. This is more among the Maoists. Those who call themselves Maoists are more prone to dogmato-revisionism, and we have to fight against this too.

View Post

Solidaire Interiew with Tom Burke On the Immigrant's Struggle in the USA

"May Day will see a unified national day of action for immigrants rights across the U.S. and more unions are planning to take part in this. Victories for immigrant workers are victories for Black and white workers. Bosses keep wages low, not immigrant workers."

Tom Burke (*) from Chicago answers the questions of Solidaire 14-04-2006

What are the exact reasons of the immigrants' movement in the USA?

Tom Burke: Millions of Mexican immigrants, joined by many other nationalities, are marching through the streets of every major U.S. city to protest the Sensenbrenner bill. This bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives makes being an "illegal" immigrant a felony crime with a prison term. Anyone aiding an "illegal" immigrant also faces jail time. A spontaneous movement of millions of workers in direct opposition to criminalization is shaking the whole U.S., even the White House. For decades, Mexican workers have faced racist abuse and super low wages.

What is the degree of mobilizations in different parts of the USA?

Tom Burke: Anywhere there is Mexican or Latino immigrants there are large marches. It started on March 10th, 2006, when 300,000 or more filled the Chicago Loop, stopping buses, subways, and even trains. Factories and restaurants shut down, students walked out of schools, babies in strollers and grandmas in wheelchairs clogged the streets. In Los Angeles over 500,000 filled the streets two weeks later and 30,000 marched in Milwaukee, Wisconsin the home state of Republican Congressman Sensenbrenner.

On April 10th, cities where immigrants were unknown twenty years ago held large rallies—40,000 in Minneapolis, 20,000 in Indianapolis, 20,000 in Salt Lake City and 50,000 in Atlanta. In the historically Mexican states of the Southwest, the movement is large and strong with 500,000 marching in Dallas, Texas, 50,000 in Denver, Colorado, 50,000 in San Diego, and 35,000 in San Jose, California. Immigrants in the U.S. have been hiding in plain sight for twenty years, but now with the huge marches and rallies there is a new understanding of how much power these workers have.

What are the political, trade-unionist, social forces behind it?

Tom Burke: The political activists and trade unions are running to keep up with the movement of the people. For example, in Chicago, a Mexican immigrant school custodian and trade unionist, Artemio Arreola was one of the leaders of a small coalition that was surprised by the hundreds of thousands who thundered through the streets. He and others like him are organizing people from their villages, cities, and states in Mexico for over a decade now. The huge numbers of protesters is spontaneous, but working class and professional organizers provided the leadership and put out the message to oppose criminalization. Latino radio announcers broadcast the message far and wide. May Day will see a unified national day of action for immigrants rights across the U.S. and more unions are planning to take part in this. The grassroots activists are aware that their leadership will be challenged every step of the way by the forces tied to the rich and powerful, especially from the Democratic Party.

What are the demands of the movement?

Tom Burke: The demands are: to stop the criminalization of immigrants; to create an amnesty that leads to legalization of immigrants without papers; for equal rights for immigrants; for equality and justice for all.

What is the role of communists in the movement?

Tom Burke: The role of communists in the immigrants’ rights movement is small, but important. Many of the leaders were revolutionaries in their youth and some are influenced by Marxism today. There is a pressing need for unity in action, while maintaining principled political positions that advance the cause of the working class. Victories for immigrant workers are victories for Black and white workers. Bosses keep wages low, not immigrant workers. Capitalism is the problem. The profit system is the enemy.

What are the contradictions in the bourgeoisie, in the trade-union organizations?

Tom Burke: There are sections of the capitalist class that oppose immigration and want to deport everyone. There are other capitalists that pay low wages and few or no benefits to immigrants. Lower wages means higher profits. The Republican Party is now split on the issue and a tremendous backtracking is happening. The Democratic Party has done little because it is easier to look the other way while immigrant workers are abused.

Some unions are very supportive of the movement, like the largest U.S. union—the Service Employees International Union. SEIU puts a good amount of effort and money into organizing amongst immigrants because that is who works in their industries. The same with UNITE/HERE that organizes factories and hotels and restaurants. At first these unions were hesitant and cautious, but now seeing the power of the movement they are coming out to provide support and help lead. For other unions, it is a question of local leadership, so carpenters unions in some cities are out in front leading, welcoming immigrants as union brothers. In other cities the union leaders are sitting on their hands, hoping the immigrants do not organize into unions. These leaders run the unions like a business and are racist against Black and Latino workers. There are fewer and fewer of these unions as they are failing. The unions that want to fight for good contracts for the workers and oppose discrimination are the ones that are growing and leading a new movement for social justice.

Tom Burke is Organizational Secretary, Freedom Road Socialist Organization.

Original article here.

Also from Solidaire on immigrant struggle in the US:

+ Interview with John Catalinotto of Workers World Party

+ Article by Gloria La Riva of Party for Socialism and Liberation

View Post

Socialism or Barbarism? Review of "Another View of Stalin"

This book by Ludo Martens of the Worker's Party of Belgium, Another View of Stalin (EPO, Antwerp: 1994.), is pretty incredible. For us, working in the United States where anticommunism is so institutionalized, it is an important book. It is a weapon for communists to use in the ideological front.

For a long time I didn't understand Comrade Stalin. I came from a petit-bourgeois intellectual Marxism, distanced from practice and tied in rather closely to to the humanist/individualist ideologies of the U.S. I read Adorno, Jameson, and Critical Theory. As a young man, a teenager just coming to Marxism, I remember people would say, "but Socialism didn't work," and I would reply, with a fine mixture of youthful optimism and naivete, "but it was never really tried!" Any scientific socialist should be able to see such a statement for the utopianism that it is. Later my utopianism became more nuanced and sophisticated as I studied philosophy formally. It was only when I came to Mao Zedong's writings and the experience of the Chinese Revolution that I could begin to reappraise Stalin, the USSR, and the world communist movement as a whole. Whatever his errors may have been, Mao was a breath of fresh air, so clear and simple, yet sharp as a razor - so practical and useful! And yet Mao was a "Stalinist." So I had to ask, was Stalin a deviation from "true" Marxism and even from Leninism (and where did that leave Mao?), or was Stalin a genuine Marxist-Leninist? What did this say about socialism, what it is and what it isn't? What did this say about what socialism could be?

Through a more thorough study of Marxism and of history, I came to see that Stalin was a great Marxist-Leninist and that the USSR, at least until the Krushchev years, provided a shining example of what Marxism was when applied. But why did it "fail" and where did that leave us? It was only much later that I came to understand the particulars of the sequence of events and what Mao Zedong calls the "two line struggle," whereby in the transitional society that socialism is (not what Marx calls a "mode of production" but something between the capitalist and communist modes) contradictions are intensified and class struggle along with it. Nothing is assured just because the proletariat has seized state power.

Fast forward a bit. I attended a recent conference where a lot of Trotskyite groups tabled. On the way to conference, in the van that we had rented for our mobilization, I was talking about Soviet history, about Stalin and his contributions to building socialism, and about the slow death of the Soviet system as the sickness of revisionism tore the USSR apart from Krushchov to through Gorbachav, to Yeltsin and the liquidation of the CPSU and the rise of the oligarchs. Having read Another View of Stalin, it was an easy thing to address such questions as, "What about Lenin's Will?", "What about the Purges and Show Trials?", "What about the Gulag? And the millions killed?" "The lack of democracy?" "The forced collectivization?" "What about Trotsky?" Martens goes into all of this. He addresses the usual criticisms of Stalin, going after their sources, showing how they don't hold up to any scientific analysis of history, situating them in their actual historical conditions, from which they are so easily and with such cleaverness removed. He exposes the agendas of Stalin's critics in the most thorough way. But people didn't understand why all these Trots were around. They were very confusing, and after all, they said all the same things about Stalin that their highschool teachers had been saying all along!

And this brings us to the question of revisionism. Some don't see why this question of Stalin is so important for Marxist-Leninists today. Stalin is dead, after all, and this isn't Russia. In the last instance, it comes down to the very essense of Marxism, to historical materialism, to the scientific analysis of social, political and economic change. Had socialism "ever been tried" and did it work? If our answer is yes, then we must come up with a balance sheet of its successes and failures, we must go into the particulars, the local and geopolitical contradictions, the historical milieu. If no, we must discern how socialism in the USSR, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia or China differed from "true" socialism, and how is this "true" socialism to ever be achived given where are and what we know about class society, imperialism, uneven development and so on? The question of Stalin is central to this - the question of the architect of the first Socialist society and leader of the international communist movement for so many crucial decades. To defend Stalin one must have a firm grasp of history. To be a Trotskyite one must only say, "but think of what it would have been like if..." The concern is not with what happened. Trotskyite "theory" doesn't hold water. And we know, as Mao Zedong has said, the basis of Marxist epistemology, that is the basis of all scientific knowledge, is practice.

A lot of people I know who have read this book on Stalin by Comrade Martens have been stunned by the degree of the lies perpetuated to attack the architect of socialism. It is a common thread that links all of communisms enemies: Imperialists, Fascists, Trotskyites, Revisionists, etc. Comrades like it because it is a weapon. Anti-capitalist fellow-travellers like it because it reaffirms what they have always suspected - that the greatest enemies of capitalism and imperialism are the ones who are most villified by the petit-bourgeois lackeys of international monopoly capital. Today as the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) stands on the verge of founding the world's next socialist state, we see it happening again with the new "biography" of Mao Zedong, which is nothing but propaganda dressed in the trappings of history.

One need not limit oneself to Krushchov's secret speech to the XXth Congress to find this problem. One can look in philosophy as well. The "Marxist" Humanists, celebrants of the velvet (counter-)revolution like Dunayevskaya (secretary of Trotsky and founder of News & Letters), Kolakowski ("Marxist" revisionist author of the most anti-Marxist philosophical text yet written, the three volume Main Currents of Marxism), and even Alain Badiou ("post-Maoist" methematician and philosopher who calls both the Chinese Cultural Revolution and the Solidarity movement in Poland "obscure events" to study and upon which to refound the leftist project). And we can see where that leads. The humanists are liberals, as Louis Althusser has pointed out in his cleaver syllogism: "All humanists are liberals; Eric Fromm [famed "Marxist Humanist"] is a humanist; Fromm is a liberal." Kolakowski sings the praises of revisionism to no end, and Badiou's OP is at best infantile leftist and worst completely reformist. Where does this revisionism lead? In the Soviet Union and the Warsaw States it led to capitalist restoration in its most barbaric form. Humanism restored gangster-liberalism in the Soviet Bloc. It is easy when you start talking about "universal human rights" to forget that this means bourgeois right, and that in the end, "universal human rights", "Socialism with a human face" and what have you, is a defeat for the working class.

It is odd that when anyone wants to talk about the "true essense" of Marxism, or a "return to Lenin" it is that old renegade Kautsky, the social-democrat who wanted a reformed capitalism, that they dredge up in order to liquidate the CP and liberalize the state and economy. And nobody embodies Kautskyism like Tony Blaire's Labour Party as they unite with U.S. imperialism to rob the Middle East of all of its resources. Mao Zedong puts it very simply: never forget class struggle.

I am an activist, a militant involved in the daily struggles of the working and oppressed people. I argue for socialism, for Marxism-Leninism. To do this, this book by Comrade Martens is useful, especially with students and young people. So many people see these problems of exploitation, poverty, national oppression, sexism, and so on. They see that they are systemic, but so often it stops there. Because the radical alternative is "Stalinism" so many people settle for an ineffective social-democracy, a vain attempt to reform capitalism, or a cynical pessimism. But this book does well to demonstrate that, situated within its historical context, Communism is a good thing. And, as Lenin would have it, the dictatorship of the proletariat is "a million times more democratic" than anything else we have ever seen.

Stalin, architect of socialism, is a shining example to genuine Marxist-Leninists everywhere.

in unity and struggle,
Comrade Zero

(Another View of Stalin can be purchased from the Stalin Society. For a good discussion on revisionism in the USSR, perhaps one that is a bit more nuanced than Restoration of Capitalism in USSR by Martin Nicolaus that so many Maoists swear by, see Ludo Martens. USSR: The Velvet Counter Revolution. EPO, Brussles: 1991. For more on the role of Stalin, the anti-revisionist movement and a critical evaluation of the role of Mao and the CPC, see also Ludo Martens. "On Certain Aspects of the Struggle Against Revisionism". PTB, Brussles: March, 1995. [.doc])

View Post