The beginning: the document of the 5th of January
On the 5 th of January 2013, the Committee of Reconstruction of the Communist Party of Ecuador published a document called “Restore or liquidate the MRI, the struggle between Marxism and revisionism”.
This documents sums up the history of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM) and explains that it played a significant historical role, in defending Mao Zedong (1980), then assuming Maoism (1993) and calling for a century of People's Wars (2000).
According to the PCE-CR, the RIM is the product of a whole period, it stresses the fact that the RIM is not a product made “coldly”, by “intellectuals”, but mainly the result of the international mass struggles, the epic People's War in Peru.
Because of this, the RIM should be defended against liquidators, mainly the Revolutionary Communist Party of the USA – RCP,USA – and its leader Bob Avakian, who produced a “new synthesis”
And defending the RIM means defending Maoism, which consists notably in: “bureaucratic capitalism, two-line struggle, people's war until communism, militarized communist parties, concentric construction of the three instruments of the revolution, contradiction between imperialism and the oppressed nations as the main contradiction in the world today.”
The PCE-CR considers also that, as some people are building a new “maoist” international with maoism based on others theses, there is in reaction a “left” liquidationnism, made by people not really knowing what really was the RIM.
Because of this, the PCE-CR proposes the reconstitution of the RIM, with the recognition of the positive character of the RIM from 1980 to 2000.
Launch of the polemics in the document
The document of the PCE-CR explains, of course, the line of the Peru People's Movement, emanation of the Communist Party of Peru (PCP) for the work abroad.
The PCP was always present in the RIM and absolutely never wanted to break with it, even if the Committee of the RIM was under control of the RCP,USA. The MPP always maintained that the PCP was the red line in the RIM, that the RIM had to be saved.
The document is therefore not only ideological: it ends up with political evaluations.
Speaking about India and the “armed struggle” of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), the PCE-CR notes that happens there the most important “accumulation of revolutionary masses and militaries” in the world. Nevertheless, the CP of India (Maoist) needs a deeper understanding of Maoism, so that it does not tumble in capitulation.
In the same way, the PCE-CR notes that a sector of the direction of the Communist Party of the Philippines considers as necessary “peace agreements”, and that the party itself is eclectic on different point (hoxhaism, FARC, Venezuela, etc.).
For the PCE-CR, the “PW is not only modern rifles, but and above all a clear, fair and correct ideological line.”
Then, finally, come the problems, as the PCE-CR proceeds in the evaluation of blogs that exist on the internet, evaluation justified by the fact that they uphold Maoism.
AMong the blogs evaluated, a double criticism provoked the polemic.
Speaking about “Dazibao Rojo”, a blog linked to the “centrists” (Maoist Road, the Communist Maoist Party of Italy, etc.), the PCE-CR considers that there are errors in the understanding of Maoism, of the revisionist process in Nepal, etc.
Speaking about “Odio del Clase”, a blog linked to the anti-centrists forces, it criticizes the eclecticism: saluting another revolutionary organization of Spain which is nevertheless Hoxhaist, publishing the link of a cultural musical blog from Ecuador which is not Maoist, speaking indirectly in a positive way of Chavez, etc.
The tone is much more rude against Odio del Clase than against Dazibao Rojo. As the PCE-CR does not speak about the joint declarations of the 15-11-2012 and the 26-12-2012, the polemics began.
Reaction of Odio del Clase
It is first important to understand that Odio del Clase has not the ideological or even the political “pretensions” of a Communist Party or an embryonic structure. It is a blog and organized people contributing to the development of Maoist ideas in their country, Spain.
They played so an important international role in publishing documents from various parties and organizations, whereas on the other side they publish a lot about imperialist interventions and social news in Spain, about political prisoners in Spain, etc.
Odio del Clase is not a dogmatic structure, in the positive sense, like are more ideological developed organizations; it is very opened to different point of views, accepting them without problems.
For this reason, Odio del Clase considered that the criticism made of them was in fact an attack against the joint document of the 15-11-2012 and the 26-12-2012, as on the other side there was no sharp criticism of the centrists.
Attacking sharply Odio del Clase but “forgetting” the centrists means, according Odio del Clase, that the criticism of the PCE-CR looks like a left criticism, but in fact converges with the centrists.
For this reason, Odio del Clase considers that the document of the PCE-CR expresses a trotskyist approach; the document of the PCE-CR is “an attack with great fury and hardness MLM forces that have been denouncing reconciliation with Nepal's revisionism and opportunism with a Maoist mask.”
It is also to note that “Dazibao Rojo”, that the PCE-CR criticizes “comradely”, also attacked already Odio del Clase, among others, in a vehement way. “Dazibao Rojo”, from Galicia in Spain, is a major component of the centrist forces and has throwen a lot of garbage to those who “dared” criticize them.
And it is not the first time that the PCE-CR criticizes Odio del Clase. Because of this, according Odio del Clase:
“These gentlemen of CR PCE actually, with all their attacks and maneuvers, defends the right of the MLM movement that always concile when not openly advocating revisionism, in its purpose to resurrect a defunct RIM, who was killed by opportunism that lead it.
A RIM whose members formed an overwhelmingly majority that kept silent or supported the betrayal of the People's War in Nepal and therefore are so discredited before the masses, which in pure opportunism they propose to resurrect.
When both the traitor Prachanda as well the opportunist Avakian Prachanda remain members with full right. That is trying to resurrect a RMI festering revisionism from every pore.”
The OCBR expresses its point of view
In this situation, a Maoist organization from Spain, the Organización Comunista Bandera Roja (Communist Organisation Red Flag) published an open letter both to the PCE-CR and the International Communist Movement.
The OCBR made an intervention because of the last events:
- the international conference called by the MPP in Madrid;
- the international conference in Germany to support the People's War in India;
- the joint declaration to support the People's War in India;
- the joint declaration against avakianism;
- the point of views of the Maoist Communist Party of Italy and the PCE-CR.
The OCBR expresses its disappointment about the position of the PCE-CR:
“We do not understand how hard a line is treated, the “leftist”, when it is patronizing to another line which is really poisonous.
Comrades, it seems that you do not want to find out who are the MCP-Italy and its Hamburg Conference maneuver, consisting in the relaunch of the RIM under its leadership, supported by parties like the MCP-France, the RCP-Canada and others German groups, that have not been highlighted in recent times for showing solidarity and support for the PCP.”
The OCBR agrees on the preoccupation of the PCE-CR, but considers that the vision of the RIM is idealized:
“The CR of the PCE presents the RIM as an incorrupt body, which through a series of transcendental declarations has won a position that, according to us, not seems to correspond to its practical activity.”
Therefore, the OCBR considers that the PCE-CR has not an adequate evaluation of the situation. The OCBR says:
“The document of the PCE-CR assumes that there exists a Maoist center or line represented by the PCP and a liquidating line of the RIM of rightists and inside, represented by Prachanda and Avakian and others leftists represented, we assume, by those who claim for a new international.
Even accepting this analysis, what strikes us is the lack of specific references to the steps that are being taken concretely, wanting to somehow reconcile reality and idealism.
Let's get down to the point: For us it would be magnificient that the PCP would lead a possible reconstitution of the RIM, but that, while desirable, is not tangible today.
The reality is that the reconstruction of MRI is coming from the hand that precisely isolated the PCP, cheated on Nepal, has positions currently hesitant about Nepal and of those who directly have had much to do with the defenestration of the RIM and not have made a serious self-criticism.
For us right now, upholding the RIM is not raise the RIM that surpassed the fall of Mao and the GPCR with GP and Maoism and is not not raise transcendental declarations on what is commented; for us to uphold the RIM at this time is only to raise a criticism of B. Avakian and the RCP-USA and a number of bureaucrats liquidators of the PCP and conciliatory centrists.”
According to the OCBR, the centrists are now also criticizing avakianism, because they want through that to mask their own responsibility in the failure of the RIM.
In this situation, the MCP of Italy has taken the lead of centrism, it is “the right line of Maoism, captained by the PCM-Italy. These old foxes of parasitic policy are using the PW in India to try to revitalize the RIM, for this they used and still use the Hamburg Conference as a weapon to achieve their dream of international bureaucrats.”
For this reason, if the OCBR share the view of the PCE-CR on the importance of the PCP, it considers the joint declarations against centrism as a step forward.
So, the PCE-CR is “advocating a reconstruction of the RIM under the red line and although that is also our desire, the reality is that neither the CR of the PCE nor the OCBR have the capacity to do this, especially considering that both organizations even officially belong to this international organization.
Thus, the thesis reflected in the document of the CR of the PCE leaves all responsibility for the reconstruction of the RIM to the PCP, when this is not even recognized by many of those who carry out the reconstruction of the MRI.”
The OCBR considers, in fact, that the nature of the centrists is underestimated, and that the MCP-Italy plays a very negative role:
“About the MCP-Italy, we must also make some comments. The first is that seems to us a disgrace the maneuver of the Hamburg Conference, they make an attempt to reconstruct the RIM on the basis of centrist-right-wing views.
We find it shameful that they still do not take responsibility for anything and that they speak of the Co-RIM, as if they were strangers to it.
This is cynicism.
We also regret the great coverage that have both done Dazibao Rojo as GMHC of this conference, consciously or unconsciously understanding the great maneuver behind it.
The MCP-Italy traffics with the PW in India, to impose its cosmopolitanism based practice. They are very comfortable living of the international work and want to give themselves importance acting as bureaucrats of the Co-RIM type.”
Finally, the OCBR agrees on the fact that Odio del Clase must be clearer on many points, being more systematic in its conceptions.
The position of the UOC(MLM)
On the 14th of January 2013, the UOC(MLM) of Colombia made public its position about the polemic, called “A cannon with wet gunpowder against the joint statement of 26 December 2012.”
The Communist Worker Union (MLM) played a central role in the joint declarations against prachandism and centrism; it appreciates the PCP but reject the People's War as universal theory. It also considers that Colombia is a capitalist country, because there would have been a qualitative jump and the companies in the countryside would be great capitalists.
According the UOC(MLM), the PCE-CR “offends and creates intrigues to discredit, demoralize, counterpoint and demoralize the communists having signed the Declaration” of the 26-12-2012.
The PCE-CR is considered as having a left discourse but in fact helping centrism. The UOC (MLM) explains that:
“The Revolutionary Internationalist Movement - RIM went ideological, political and organizational bankrupt , collapsed, was liquidated, was killed by unity, tolerance and reconciliation with the opportunist tendencies that emerged in this movement, leading to the dominance of a new form of old opportunism , a new form of opportunism that distorts Marxism to Marxism Leninism Maoism name.
So the CR-PCE invokes the “reconstitution of MRI” with the “expelling” of some evil characters, as if opportunism was a problem of individuals and not of class interests that pervert and degenerate the party.”
The UOC(MLM) attacks sharply the PCE-CR:
“All a rigmarole supports speculations and falsehoods that only serve to fool unwary, as the story that those calling to continue the struggle for a new International are unaware of the RIM experience and have formed a plot against the PCP.
In its form and its content, the allegation of the CR-PCE is absurd, wrong and ridiculous, which in practice gives a hand to international centrism and ultimately pseudo MLM revisionism, hence the applause of European centrist leaders and the inevitable anonymous intriguing on the Internet.
The CR-PCE document is a cannon with wet gunpowder against the transcendental firm and correct anti-revisionist Joint Declaration of December 26, 2012.”
On the other side, the UOC(MLM) makes also an ideological criticism, rejecting the “bureaucratic capitalism” of semi-colonial countries as a Maoist thesis; the PCE-CR is considered as having “reduced it to a formula taken mechanically, idealist and metaphysical of the Chinese experience.”
In the same way, even if Odio del Clase has “secondary defects”, criticizing in the way it did it, the PCE-CR plays the game of the centrists; it criticism is basically centrist.
The UOC(MLM) recognizes so that they are differences among the signatories of the joint declaration, about capitalism in oppressed countries, people's war as universal or not, but the identity is the struggle against the main threat, revisionism.
The new call of the PCE-CR
On the 14th of January 2013, the PCE-CR answered to the criticism, with a new call. Here it is, complete.
POINT OF DEBATE IN MCI
¡Workers of all countries, unite!
He has already begun the debate titled"Reconstitute or settle the MRI, struggle between Marxism and revisionism" that prepared our party a week ago. This is precisely one of the goals set by our organization: the unleashing of the two-line struggle in the MCI around the hot spots of the communist movement and international perspectives. So this debate and struggle of positions not be exhausted within two weeks or two months, will continue giving for a long time and gradually will answer the various communist parties and revolutionary organizations and the revisionists and centrists.
For this debate to be fruitful, for it is imposed cornered red line and the black line, our Party emits some points needed to recommend taking them into account by those from inside the MRI and beyond, are or will to participate in this political struggle.
1.-That each party and organization takes place and is defined in the following theses Maoists or refused and fights these theses:
-Two-line struggle as the motor of the Communist Party
-Bureaucratic capitalism
-Maoist-Communist Parties
-Concentric-Construction of the three instruments of the revolution
-Peoples War until Communism
-Headquarters [Leadership]
-Contradiction between imperialism and the oppressed nations and peoples as the principal contradiction in the world today
-GPCR
-Fight imperialism, reaction and revisionism inseparably and relentlessly.
-Crush the imperialist plan of "peace accords" and parliamentary cretinism
These are not the only controversy of the MCI, but if the most representative.
2.-Before making judgments and criteria, it would be nice to at least be given a quick read of the MRI statements for the period from 1984 to 2000 when the Red Line was in charge (and "Autumn Statement" as a step in formation MRI), to establish a fair balance of the organization and thus look objectively if possible or reconstitution. Due to the dispersion of such documents, our organization has compiled the following link for easy handling: http://www.mediafire.com/view/?t451cobgbfj2g83
3.-Similarly we expect criticism and self-criticism is unleashed, the two-line struggle is given in its splendor. In that sense, our Party welcomes criticism to be made on the document "Reconstitute or settle the MRI, struggle between Marxism and revisionism", as it is part of the debate, even those without any theoretical-practical. It is time that the MCI will exceed those conceptions and practices of petty bourgeois consider critics as "vile attack" or "attack scavenger", etc.. If we are proletarians should act accordingly and be prepared to receive criticism, self-criticism, to assume the two-line struggle in all its intensity and not resent for it, not run away like some.
4.-That the debate on reconstitution or liquidation of the MRI, or establish a new international, is supported by sound arguments, theoretical and practical, we must break the scholastic method of some organizations that make proposals in the air without the slightest notion of how to implement them.
Finally, our Party will rule later on the criticisms raised, when all other communist parties and revolutionary organizations to speak out on the subject.
¡RECONSTITUTE THE MRI, DEFENDING ITS ACCUMULATED HISTORY, CLINGING TO MAOISM, FIGHTING AND CRUSHING THE RIGHT LIQUIDATIONISM AND "LEFT"!
¡UNLEASH THE STRUGGLE OF TWO LINES IN THE MCI!
¡CRITICISM AND SELF-CRITICISM ARE REFLECTED IN THIS FIGHT!
¡RAISE THE PCP PROLETARIAN INTERNATIONALISM, TO CONTINUE TO CARRY RED FACTION ROLE IN MCI!
¡FIGHTING THE "NEW" REVISIONISM: MAOIST WORD, OPPORTUNISTIC FACTS!
RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE
COMMUNIST PARTY OF ECUADOR
14/01/2013
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario