Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 20:48:26 -0400
From: hariette-AT-easynet.co.uk (Hariette Spierings)
Subject: M-G: The parties of revisionism and the Parties of Communism


Having been unmasked and suffering utter ideological defeat, the drones of
revisionism - who were so eager to "debate" the issue in the first place -
have now usurped the legitimate mechanisms of LeninList and reneged of its
principles, illegally and treacherously substituting a panel of revisionists
and opportunists usurpers guided by the principle of protecting the
bureacrat capitalist regimes - like they previously protected Gorbachev,
Chernenko, Deng, Bhreznev and Khruschev - for its legitimate founding panel.

In order for people to see that such swindlers - headed by the Khruschovite
drone J. Hillier - were indeed totally exposed as complete ignoramuses who
at the end of the day had to rely on the support of few Trotskysts
cheeleaders to try to disguise their rout, we are now beginning to publish
in various lists the documentation of this debate which in the end force
them to carry out a coup the etat as their only resource to try cover the
sun with their dirty revisionist finger.


Adolfo Olaechea  



>To: LeninList-AT-cag1.demon.co.uk
>From: hariette-AT-easynet.co.uk (Hariette Spierings)
>Subject: The parties of revisionism and the Parties of Communism
>
>It may be helpful for comrades interested in the current debate regarding
the alleged "socialist character" of such States and parties as the Chinese
and Cuban revisionist parties to reflect upon comrade Stalin's words and
place them in today's context - a context signed by capitalist restoration
on the one hand, and the growing wars of national and social liberation led
by the proletariat and being fought against world imperialism, on the other:
>
>"The war (first world war) wrought a profound change in the life of the
peoples, in the LIFE OF THE WORKING CLASS OF THE WORLD. The fate of states,
the fate of nations, the FATE OF THE SOCIALIST MOVEMENT was at stake.  The
war was therefore a TOUCHSTONE, a TEST FOR ALL PARTIES and TRENDS calling
themselves SOCIALIST.  Would these parties REMAIN TRUE TO THE CAUSE OF
SOCIALISM, TO THE CAUSE OF INTERNATIONALISM, or would they choose to BETRAY
THE WORKING CLASS, to furl their banners and lay them at the feet of their
national bourgeosie? - that is how the question stood at the time".
>
>"The war showed that the parties of the Second International HAD NOT STOOD
THE TEST, that they HAD BETRAYED THE WORKING CLASS and had surrendered their
banners to the imperialist bourgeosie of their own countries".
>
>"And these parties, WHICH HAD CULTIVATED OPPORTUNISM IN THEIR MIDST, and
which have been BROUGHT UP TO MAKE CONCESSIONS TO THE OPPORTUNISTS, TO THE
NATIONALISTS, could NOT have acted differently".
>
>"The war showed that the bolshevik Party was THE ONLY PARTY which had
passed the TEST with flying colours and had remained CONSISTENTLY FAITHFUL
TO THE CAUSE OF SOCIALISM, the CAUSE OF PROLETARIAN INTERNATIONALISM".
>
>"And that was to be expected: ONLY A PARTY of a new type, ONLY A PARTY
FOSTERED IN THE SPIRIT OF UNCOMPROMISING STRUGGLE AGAINST OPPORTUNISM, only
a Party that was FREE OF OPPORTUNISM AND NATIONALISM, ONLY SUCH A PARTY
COULD STAND THE GREAT TEST AND REMAIN FAITHFUL TO THE CAUSE OF THE WORKING
CLASS, to the CAUSE OF SOCIALISM AND INTERNATIONALISM".
>
>(History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (b) Short Course p. 172)
>
>And add to this - bearing in mind the position of the renegade revisionists
in China, Cuba, Korea, etc. vis-a-vis the revolution led by the proletarian
Party in Peru (where they collaborate actively with the Fujimori regime in
words and deeds (China provides anti-insurgency advisers, Korea has been
doing so since the time of Alan Garcia in which they participated in the
setting up of the Apra death squads providing Police advisers, war
materials, etc. and Cuba has also provided anti-insurgency advisors,
intelligence exchange (under the guise of "war on drugs"), and political,
diplomatic and economic support to the Fujimori dictatorship.  As to the
other insurgencies in Latin-America - which in fact are reflections of the
need of the oppressed peoples to struggle against their oppressors - these
regimes are active in supporting and promoting capitulationist schemes and
"pacification plans" centered around "negotiations" aimed at capitulating
such wars to imperialism by means of their local revisionist agents - the
following concepts of comrade Stalin:
>
>"Lenin showed that in the era of imperialism the capitalist yoke becomes
MORE AND MORE OPPRESSIVE, that under imperialism the REVOLT OF THE
PROLETARIAT against the FOUNDATIONS OF CAPITALISM grows, and that the
elements of a revolutionary outbreak accumulate in capitalist countries.
Lenin showed that in the era of imperialism the revolutionary crisis in the
COLONIAL AND DEPENDENT COUNTRIES becomes MORE ACUTE, that the elements of
REVOLT AGAINST IMPERIALISM, the ELEMENTS OF WAR OF LIBERATION FROM
IMPERIALISM ACCUMULATE".
>
>
>The thesis of the apologists for Cuban revisionism is a thesis of unity
with the opportunists and the capitulators, it is a thesis which reneges of
proletarian internationalism and socialism, because in proclaiming as
"socialists" the regimes of capitalist restoration they are deceiving the
masses and the working class into lending their support to their disguised
class enemies.
>
>Some apologists say "let us keep our powder dry lest we shall be throwing
out the baby together with the bathwater".  How clever.  Who is the baby and
what is the bathwater here?  
>
>What kind of baby are the Cuban revisionist leaders?  They are the babies
of Khruschev, Brezhnev, Deng Xiao-ping and now of their successors.  They
are part and parcel of the front of the capitalist restorationists and
capitulators of the revolution.  They are not the "baby" of the Cuban
revolution but the dirty bathwater which must be thrown out precisely
because it is drowning the revolutionary baby in its filth.
>
>Comrade Gonzalo said in 1986: "TODAY THERE IS NO SOCIALIST SYSTEM. There
was once a socialist system, but to hold that this exists today is in
essence to advocate that the Soviet Union is socialist, and that is
REVISIONISM".
>
>What do we observe in the world today?  We observe that the same people who
held that the Soviet Union was a socialist country under the dictatorship of
the revisionist restorationists, have now gone to apply their same rotten
revisionist reasoning to Cuba, China, Korea, etc.  That they still hold on
to the revisionist thesis of the existence of a camp of socialism.
>
>We see also that the so called "camp of socialism" of the revisionist is
also coming together with a common ideological and political platform, that
these renegades are coming together to pursue a common anti-revolutionary,
anti-proletarian and pro-imperialist policy, ideological, politically,
militarily and economically.      
>
>The heirs of Deng are now lining up with Castro - or should we say that
Castro is lining up with them.  On what basis?  On the basis of recognising
each other's "theories" as Marxism. Thus the Chinese revisionists publish
and sabctify the "Thoughts of Fidel Castro". These renegades are uniting on
the basis of pursuing a common strategy at the ideological, political,
economic and military levels, and all these objectives are
counter-revolutionary anti-proletarian ones.
>
>WE can sum them up very simply in the words of Jian Zemin:
>
>"...... the PURSUIT OF PROFIT .... must not be allowed to corrupt the Party
absolute authority". 
>
>".... the party's ... commitment to "state ownership" .... also means
"public ownership" through JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES........"  "Even if the
state-owned sector accounts for a smaller proportion of the economy, this
will not affect the socialist nature of our country".  
>
>According to this clever dick who tries to sell us a reactionary flint
stone with the label "revolutionary chicken egg" the AUCTION TO IMPERIALIST
CAPITAL of more that 10.000 out of 13.000 large and medium sized sized state
enterprises in China "will not affect the SOCIALIST NATURE of our country".  
>
>Althought, according to this "socialist comrade" of Fidel Castro this "..
will cause temporary difficulties for workers. But fundamentally speaking it
is conducive to economic development, thus conforming  to the long-time
interests of the working class"!  
>
>Come on comrades, let us all join the dole queue (if there be any) "for the
long time interests of the working class".  What is different from Jian
Zemin's and Castro's "socialism" from Yeltsin's where the lack of payment of
salaries can also be said - if you subscribe to this idiotic philosophy - to
"conform to the long term interests of the working class"?   
>
>That is why I said yesterday:
>
>Mrs. Thatcher was indeed this very kind of "socialist" as "comrade Jiang"
and "Loads o' Money" was the "nom de guerre" of a "proletarian leader" of
the revisionist kind". 
>
>Even the Guardian hack can see it - although the apologists of "goulash
socialism" cannot:
>
>"More lay-offs with a promise of short term pain for long term-gain is a
risky gamble"
>
>What sort of risk is he talking about?  The risk of resistance, of
revolutionary struggle of the proletariat and the popular masses AGAINST the
capitalist roaders and restorationist renegade revisionists.  That is the
"risk".
>
>This same risk is what faces Castro in Cuba - and the analysis of his own
bureacratic capitalist anti-proletarian political economy confirms it.
>
>In front of this reality, what does the theory of "Cuba is a socialist
country"? (which now - given the clear degree of unity achieved with the
Chinese revisionists means that we have here a single trend which recognises
in each other "Marxists" who are quite happy to take the "risky gamble" of
short tem pain for long term gain (and jam tomorrow too), people who are
united in regarding JOINT STOCK COMPANY ownership of means of production as
a "public ownership" (Public Limited Companies - Plcs., that is "socialism"
for you, comrades?) which, according to this "Grouchian Marxist" it is the
very same thing as "ownership by the state of the means of production,
distribution and exchange"). What does this theory of "defence of Cuban
socialism" imply at the political level?
>
>Does it imply defence of the Cuban revolution?  No. It implies endorsement
of a regime which "under cover of socialist rethoric" is engaged in setting
up JOINT STOCK COMPANIES with imperialist capital geared to the "PURSUIT OF
PROFITS" without surrendering the absolute authotity of the revisionsit
bureacracy.  That is, to use all sorts of repressive means against workers
who for their class interests must per force struggle against this PURSUIT
OF PROFITS at the cost of their pain, at the cost of their "state property"
auctioned to private Joint Stock Companies.  In synthesis:  A social-fascist
dictatorship wrapped up in the banner of "socialism".
>
>
>What should the revolutionaries do in front of that?  Stand with the
working class and its class interests, or stand santifying the "privatising"
Thatcherite bureacrats and revisionists renegades?  That is the question of
the present era.
>
>With the revolution or with the counter-revolution?
>
>
>Adolfo Olaechea 
>
> 
>



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