Date: Thu, 13 Mar 97 20:59:06 UT
Subject: M-G: DHKP-C on Anti-Stalinism and the World Situation






In the light of the recent thread on Third World Stalinism, and in particular 
in the light of Zeynep's comments on the matter, I thought I'd forward this to 
the list. The CAG published it in "The Communist", a magazine that we publish 
jointly with supporters of the DHKC here in London. An electronic version is 
available via e-mail if anyone wants it.

The DHKP-C, formerly known as Dev Sol, are a powerful Marxist-Leninist 
organisation involved in the armed struggle against fascism in Turkey. I 
recently posted a unity statement from them and the PKK, but nobody really 
made any comment except for one worthless and predictable rant from Malecki.

During last year's Hunger Strike in which 12 comrades died, 5 came from the 
DHKP-C. At last year's May Day in Istanbul, the DHKP-C (which is illegal) 
organised a massive contingent. According to the revolutionary communist 
newspaper "Kurtulus", it numbered 30,000 out of an estimated 100,000 strong 
demo. This was kind of confirmed by all the Turkish satellite TV reports I 
saw: in every shot there were DHKP-C banners and militants.

Comrades wanting to check out the DHKP-C website will find a host of things 
there, both informative and theoretical. You can findit by linking up to the 
Ozgurluk Press Agency page at : http://www.xs4all.nl/~ozgurluk and following 
the link from there.

For Communism

Jim
CAG
London



"Anti-Stalinism" and the Current World Situation



In the present situation, anti-Communism above all takes the form of 
anti-Stalinism. In this article written by the Revolutionary People's 
Liberation Party of Turkey [DHKP], it is argued that it is impossible to 
defend socialism without defending Stalin.

Prior to the collapse of the socialist system, the fight for markets and 
competitiveness between imperialist powers was focused on new areas for 
exploitation. Now, however, in addition to these conflicts, the main area of 
imperialist competition and struggle for super profits has become the 
countries and regions which have broken away from the socialist system, and 
which have recently opened up to the capitalist-imperialist market. They 
represent new, virgin lands for the imperialist monopolies.
	In order to gain control of these markets, the imperialists have above all 
been fostering nationalism, and on this basis have created regional wars. On 
the one hand, this secures bourgeois control over class consciousness, while 
on the other hand, by getting people to kill each other and use up their 
financial resources, they have made them dependent on imperialism 
economically, politically in every other way, thus securing their own 
domination.
	After imperialism brought about the collapse of the socialist system, the New 
World Order demagogy had an ideological influence over some national 
liberation movements which, although they had launched liberation struggles 
and had even developed them to the point of revolution, had remained dependent 
on the strength of the revisionist system. They signed peace agreements with 
imperialism and spread the process of disarmament. Many countries which are 
not under the control of imperialism, and do not want to under such control, 
are continuing to resist surrender to imperialism, while others are trying to 
stand on their own feet, and to at least retain hold on their reins of power, 
and thus are succumbing to the politics of surrender.
	In short, this is the picture of the world today. The question is, how did 
this negative situation come about? After WW2, socialism went from being one 
country to become a socialist system covering a third of the world. As a 
result of the struggles for national and social liberation, many of the newly 
independent countries withdrew from the capitalist-imperialist market. In many 
of them, the revolutionary struggle had intensified, and they were at the 
point of progressing towards socialism with massive strides. This was a period 
when the capitalist system was being turned upside down by new revolutions, 
and when a socialist system was  being formed. The imperialist system was 
entering a stage where it was being wiped out step by step. The compelling 
question we must find an answer to is how was this situation reversed?
	To answer this question, we must begin first of all by discussing 
"anti-Stalinism."
	Today, when its results can be clearly and openly seen, this "anti-Stalinism" 
has become totally bankrupt. Under the guise of "anti-Stalinism", those who 
collaborated with imperialism have brought great harm to socialism; they 
caused the collapse of the socialist system, and their own downfall into the 
bargain.


The Ideological and Historical Roots of "Anti-Stalinism"

"The bourgeoisie and its ideology, its oppression upon the proletariat and its 
party, mean that the bourgeoisie's thoughts, its traditions, its habits ... 
this way or that way pass through the sections connecting the proletariat to 
the bourgeoisie, and penetrates within the proletariat and its party." 
[Stalin, The Source of the Conflicts Within the Party]
	The concrete truth which Stalin was trying to explain, is confirmed 
particularly today in the efforts to intervene in the proletariat's 
revolutionary struggle under the guise of "anti-Stalinism."
	Anti-Stalinism has existed in the international Communist movement throughout 
the period since the mid 1920s, when it first appeared in the form of a 
turn-coat faction called Trotskyism. Up until the mid 1920s, Trotskyism was an 
anti-Bolshevik and anti-Marxist opposition. After that, it changed its 
appearance completely, and went from being anti-Leninist to being 
anti-Stalinist.  But Trotskyism has not been able to play any other role than 
that of permanent opposition, and its history is one of broken illusions..
	As a result of the successes in building socialism and in the struggle 
against fascism, Trotskyism gained no particular benefits from its change in 
form. After WW2, this anti-Marxist-Leninist opposition dressed up in the form 
of anti-Stalinism, had effectively fallen silent, having been reduced to the 
point where it was not taken seriously in the international movement.
	Stalin was the target of propaganda, because it was under his name that 
socialist politics were becoming concrete, and because his policy of not 
making concessions was making further progress all the time. The world 
proletariat was progressing rapidly, as was the move towards socialism among 
those fighting for national liberation. With every passing day, the 
anti-imperialist camp was getting stronger. Imperialism had to block this 
advance.
	This is why a sustained anti-socialist campaign was launched against Stalin 
personally.
	To be able to stand up against these attacks (which have been waged world 
wide on every terrain -  militarily, politically, diplomatically, and 
ideologically through propaganda), to be able to successfully win new 
victories and impose further setbacks on imperialism, what is required is a 
leadership which has a consistent and correct line, along with a strong 
organisation under the direction of this leadership. This is particularly the 
case for the socialist countries, but holds also for the entire world. Until 
the death of Stalin, this fight was being waged successfully, and socialism 
was making new gains world-wide.


The Resolutions of the 20th Congress of the CPSU were the Start of the 
Disintegration of the Socialist System

In terms of this question, the death of Stalin created a huge vacuum. The 
weakening of the country and the party structure, the damage caused by the 
war, the great loss of cadres whose places were not filled for a long time - 
these and other reasons resulted in Stalin's gap remaining unfilled. This was 
part of the price that the Soviet Union had to pay on behalf of the people of 
the world for its struggle against Hitler fascism, which had aimed to enslave 
the people of the world.
	As for the collective leadership which replaced Stalin, its capacity and 
understanding were very far from being up to the task. The political line 
which was followed was not clear, and against the backdrop of the confusion 
which stemmed from the attacks of imperialism, self-doubt emerged. Through 
exaggerating the situation of the CPSU, they were unable to see the level of 
revolutionary struggle on a global scale. For those who are unable to perceive 
the true level of revolutionary struggle through the bombardments of 
imperialism, the situation was genuinely fearful. Not being able to see how 
the world had changed from the days when the task was to defend the only 
socialist country in existence, the revisionists begun to take control of the 
leadership through expulsions.
	Modern revisionism, having put forward its defeatist views, incriminated 
Stalin and rejected armed revolution, then began to follow policies which 
benefited imperialism. The fact is that socialist liberation struggles were 
left without support, and the path they were following condemned through the 
mouths of "socialists". But this is not the most important thing. This 
revisionism created an opportunity for the revival of many tendencies which 
were waiting to pounce. Trotskyism, which had never laid down the flag of 
anti-socialism, became even more excited by this development. To this chorus 
were added the voices of the defeated Communist Parties of Europe, including 
the Communist Party of Italy and the Communist Party of France, who in one way 
or another had held power in their hands only to surrender it to the 
bourgeoisie.
	It became a matter of prestige to defend Stalin, who was at the centre of the 
propaganda war between revolution and counter-revolution. Imperialism made 
this leader the target. As if it was not enough that these [revisionists] had 
given up, they wanted to erase him from the ranks of socialists, through 
attacks from within the party he had led for years. They wanted to erase him 
>from history.
	What Stalin had achieved and his understanding were swept away in one blow. 
He was then portrayed as a "dictator". Revisionism took strength from the 
attacks of imperialism, and in turn objectively these imperialist attacks were 
strengthened as a result of the revisionists.
	The first thing that the founders of Eurocommunism did was to condemn Stalin, 
to cut of all ties to him, and  in order to "disprove" the imperialist 
propaganda they changed everything, even their names. By rejecting the 
dictatorship of the proletariat (very important for the bourgeoisie), armed 
uprising and other similar terms, they acted in the interests of the 
bourgeoisie. The ideology of the 2nd International and nationalism grew in 
strength.
	As a result of the reformist-pacifist left taking on board the 
"anti-Stalinist" campaign, which had been started by the bourgeoisie in order 
to destroy the massive development of socialist, not only was Eurocommunism 
brought into the open, not only did it foster the revival of currents which 
had been buried by history like Trotskyism and anarchism, and the emergence of 
numerous anti-Stalin writers, but in addition secured the conditions for many 
bourgeois and petit bourgeois sections to enter "left" platforms. 
	A further result which has emerged is that anti-Stalinist writers have served 
to strengthen class collaboration by the left. The tradition of revolutionary 
politics, free of concessions, which came to the fore after WW2 when the 
politics of the 2nd International were thrown into the rubbish bin of history, 
suddenly disappeared.
	The bluff and exaggeration of the bourgeoisie have once again became an 
effective method. The bourgeoisie is once again sure that when it raises its 
voice a little, when it steps up the threats, when it intensifies the 
demagogy, it will be able to divide a few left currents which were ready to 
retreat. To give an example of this, take a look at the situation of the PDS 
in Germany. Today every current can be found within the ranks of the PDS. The 
leadership of this party launched a campaign to remove the last "Stalinist" 
elements from their ranks. By making it a principle to sever all ties with 
Stalinism, they then moved to cut off all ties to organisations they knew were 
Stalinist.  
	There is no need to look very far to see what the ideological roots of 
"Anti-Stalinism" are. The essence of "Anti-Stalinism" is anti-Marxism and 
anti-Leninism. When Lenin summed up the history of Marxism in Marxism and 
Revisionism, he wrote that "In the first half century of its existence, 
Marxism was engaged in combating theories fundamentally hostile to it. ... But 
after Marxism had ousted all the more or less integral doctrines hostile to 
it, the tendencies expressed in those doctrines began to seek other channels. 
The forms and motives of the struggle changed, but the struggle continued. and 
the second half century of the existence of Marxism began with the struggle of 
a trend hostile to Marxism within Marxism." "Anti-Stalinism" is precisely such 
a trend hostile to Marxism within Marxism.


Gorbachovism is an Attack on Leninism under the Guise of an Attack of Stalin.

	The Soviet Union's policy of collaboration with imperialism evolved over a 
period of time and arrived at the final stage which was counter-revolutionary 
Gorbachovism. This line did not emerge suddenly. It began with the resolutions 
of the 20th Congress of the CPSU, and was formulated in the term, "peaceful 
co-existence," peaceful competition, and peaceful transition and reform of 
capitalism, which found its final development with Gorbachov and which 
culminated in counter-revolution. The policies which were given Gorbachov's 
name were only a continuation of the earlier developments - the split in the 
socialist camp and the move to the right.
	Gorbachov traced his ideological roots to Khrushchov and Bukharin. Gorbachov 
rehabilitated the counter-revolutionaries, which even Khrushchov had not been 
able to achieve, and made his views of both Khrushchov and Stalin known. It is 
clear today that Gorbachov, who very soon recognised as a traitor, was from 
the start an enemy of Stalin.
	

One Cannot Defend Socialism Without Defending Stalin

We oppose the criticisms that have been made against Stalin which do not take 
into consideration the internal and external historical and objective 
conditions, the imperialist blockade, the threat of intensified attacks from 
fascism which was on the rise, the moves towards imperialist war, the 
peasants' resistance against socialist co-operatives and the attempts by petit 
bourgeois currents to destroy the unity of the party. Contrary to the 
accusations - that Stalin abused his power, infringed socialist legality, 
concentrated the leadership of the party and the state into his own hands, and 
oppressed the masses - the period in question was one when the party's ties 
with the masses was at its height. This was the most progressive level that 
the party reached in the entire 70 years of socialism. It was a time when the 
Stakhanov movement created extraordinary work rates and levels of 
self-sacrifice, a time when the people had become socialist.
	To take a period which is full of successes and achievements, a time when 
political methods were used to realise these gains, and to evaluate this in a 
way which puts these methods in opposition to and separate from the party's 
historical leadership is not consistent with the materialist conception of 
history.
	In conclusion, the criteria of political success for Marxist-Leninists is to 
raise the level of the struggles of the world's proletariat, and to strengthen 
them with the successes of socialist and internationalist politics. It is to 
develop the national liberation movements and to strike new blows against 
imperialism.
	Those who have not learnt the lesson from the practical developments of the 
CPSU and the Soviet Union have been thrown from left to right, and have 
experienced confusion, above all in political and ideological terms.
	The period has clearly shown that socialism cannot be built on the basis of 
dogmatic, economistic, nationalist or pragmatic analysis. Such analysis turns 
Marxism-Leninism into revisionism, internationalism into nationalism, 
practical revolution into opportunism, and as a whole socialism moves towards 
the restoration of capitalism.
	Marxist-Leninists who have understood this for over 20 years have for this 
reason been justified in their struggles. It is because of the consistency and 
the faith shown in defending the purity of Marxism-Leninism that Turkey today 
has a revolutionary mission.
	To not rely on external forces, but to think, to learn, to make revolution 
and develop how to defend that revolution by totally depending upon and 
relying upon one's own strength will secure the development of a far healthier 
socialism, one which will not collapse.
	We have now entered a period where all over the world the struggle of 
organisations who refuse to surrender to imperialism and who have confidence 
in the strength of the people, is on the rise.



     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---