WHAT IS TO BE DONE BY MARXIST REVOLUTIONARIES

[hariette@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (hariette spierings)]

Now, after suffering ideological and political defeat, the holdouts of
counter-revolutionary anti PCP positions - some more openly slanderous,
while other resorting to underhand "damning with faint praise", it has come
to the fore Anarchism and activism with no head or tails as a stick to beat
the PCP.

This anrcho-syndicalists currents are confusing individual or single
actions, with a revolutionary prolatarian strategy.

There are some who propose the "organisation of a General Strike" as the
panacea that would bring down capitalist society.  They forget that a
revolution only REALLY starts with the seizure of power.

Others, allege that organising "a riot for whatever reason that comes handy"
is the task of revolutionaries.  This reflects the old anarchism denounced
by Marx and Engels, and now reappering under "Trotskyst" or "Syndicalist"
banners.

The question for true Marxists, however is neither the organisation of a
General Strike, nor the organisation of a riot.  The task for Marxists is
the organisation of the REVOLUTION.  So to the demagogic slogans of
"organise a General Strike" - we counterpose the slogan "Organise the
Revolution".  And to the slogan of "Organise a Riot", we counterpose the
slogan of "Organise the Instruments of the Revolution".

In the talk FASCISM, THE OLD AND THE NEW, we have already outlined the first
steps on the road to the fulfilment of the proletarian tasks. Of course,
these tasks are only outlined, and it corresponds to the real comrades in
the advanced countries to develop both theoretically and practically these
tasks.  A revolution is not a riot, or a General Strike, a revolution is a
mass social movement for the overthrow of existing conditions and their
substitution for new social relations, a new society.

A revolution is not a dinner party, but neither is it a riot, it is the
exercise of violence by which one class overthrows another, and that does
not end with a seizure of power, presuposed a proletarian dictatorship and
the capacity to exert it.  That requires strategy, and a superior strategy
at that in relation to the strategy of the class enemy.

Neither riots or general strikes are an insuperable problem for the class
enemy by themselves.  A revolution is!.  Organise the Revolution!  That
should be our watchword!

Therefore we attach here the Final Synthesis of the document Fascism, the
Old and the New, to demonstrate how baseless are the anarchistic allegations
of those who would oppose the PCP and maoism from the "let's do something,
whatever it is" perspective.


Adolfo Olaechea
In synthesis, we find ourselves at a moment in which, as Dimitrov said: "Whoever
does not fight the reactionary measures of the bourgeoisie and the growth of
fascism at these preparatory stages is not in a position to prevent the victory 
of
fascism, but, on the contrary, facilitates that victory."

Old style fascism was able to win the day and come to power in the past.  Why? 
Dimitrov pointed out: "Fascism was able to come to power primarily because the
working class, owing to the policy of class collaboration with the bourgeoisie
pursued by the Social-Democratic leaders, proved to be split, politically and
organisationally disarmed, in face of the onslaught of the bourgeoisie.  And the
Communist Parties, on the other hand, apart from and in opposition to the 
Social-
Democrats, were not strong enough to rouse the masses and to lead them in a
decisive struggle against fascism."
 
Is this not also the case today?  And is it not an even more serious problem 
than
yesterday?  Is it not the case that the class, many communist parties, have been
divided, politically and organisationally disarmed by revisionism?  Can anyone 
say
that we have numerous sufficiently strong communist parties today so as to "lead
the masses in a decisive struggle against fascism"? 

What is to be done?

In his speech Chairman Gonzalo said: 

"What should we do?  What is the order of the day?  Well, the order of the day 
is
to strengthen the people's liberation movement........  The order of the day is 
to set
up a Front of People's Liberation ...... That is the order of the day!  That is 
what
we shall do!  That is what we are already doing!  And that is what we are going
to be doing!....You will witness it!"  

Dimitrov said: "Comrades, millions of workers and working people of the 
capitalist
countries ask the question: How can fascism be prevented from coming into power
and how can fascism be overthrown after it has obtained power?  To this the
Communist International replies: The first thing that must be done, the thing 
with
which to begin, is to form a united front, to establish unity of action of the 
workers
in every factory, in every district, in every region, in every country all over 
the
world.  Unity of action of the proletariat on a national and international 
scale is the
mighty weapon which renders the working class capable not only of successful
defence but also of successful counterattack against fascism, against the class
enemy."

"Proletarians of all countries, unite!"  

>From the time of Marx and Engels our movement has been guided by the necessity
of forging its unity.  Its unity of action to defend its freedoms and rights, 
its class
interests.  Its unity, in synthesis, for the struggle for political power, to 
accomplish
our revolution and to shape the world in accordance with our outlook in life. 

All the classics of Marxism have advocated the United Front as the class 
policy. 
Whosoever disputes this fact does not know what the proletariat is, and even 
less
does he know Marxism.

We must always remind ourselves that to achieve victory our cause depends upon
the many, and that the few, the leaders and cadres, have only an important but
limited role to play.  That revolutions are made by the masses, as indeed 
history
itself is.  That the parties, the leaders and the revolutionary organisations 
can only
exert the various tasks of leadership and orientation.  The tasks of leadership 
are
crucial for the victory of the masses, and we all know that without a 
revolutionary
party there can not be a victorious revolution.  But these are tasks that, if 
not
discharged properly by some, others can always - and, inevitably, will always - 
take
their place in accomplishing. 

"Ye are many, they are few!", wrote the English poet Percy Shelley.  The
communists have as a principle the unity of the greatest number.  Chairman
Gonzalo once said "..either we all enter communism or no one does".  But this
unity we seek, the only possible unity, is unity with a class sense and purpose.
Unity rooted in principle and with a clear objective.  Our unity has but one
condition: "..that it is directed against the class enemy."

Moreover, this unity of the untold millions of workers, peasants, students and 
other
democratic sectors, this great anti-fascist and revolutionary front, cannot be
accomplished without simultaneously forging the unity of the proletarian class, 
its
backbone, organiser and guide in the struggle.  And the proletariat would be 
unable
to fulfil its role if it lacks its own class party, its thinking and acting 
organ, the
Communist Party.  Today in the world, there is a lack of Communist Parties as
never before.  The handiwork of revisionism still weighs heavily upon the 
subjective
conditions, particularly in the advanced countries where the social basis of
imperialism allows fertile ground for revisionist weeds - the ideas of the 
labour
aristocracy.  It is undeniable that a large portion of the workers movement in 
the
imperialist countries has for a long time followed a revisionist orientation.  
It has
abandoned Marxism and served the class enemy. 

Therefore the masses, in their wisdom and common sense, and seeing with a sharp
eye how things stood, stayed away from such communist parties that were
dragging the red flag through the social-fascist mud, justifying all the crimes
against the class and the people that revisionism committed at the service of 
the
imperialist bourgeoisie.  Obsolete parties, miserable cabooses for the train of 
the
aristocracy of labour and its social-democrat parties. What use could such 
parties
be for the oppressed?  What advantage could the class or the people perceive in
them?  

Moreover, among those who one way or another resisted the Marshall's baton of
modern revisionism, a true communist movement failed to coalesce, nor did
authentic revolutionary parties arose in most parts of the world.  Apart from a
handful of individuals, the majority of these organisms fell to charlatans and
dogmatic sectarians, who made of "anti-revisionism" a bargaining chip to receive
the largesse of various factions within the revisionist camp.  With such 
"communist
parties" there could not be revolution of any kind, and the popular masses were
better able than the leaders to perceive their true interests in resisting and 
staying
away from the social-fascist project of revisionism. 

Therein the roots of the divorce between the party and the masses.  A party that
wants to direct the masses against their own interests ends up an empty shell 
and
an obsolete apparatus of no use whatsoever.

Conditions are changing.  Today there is a change of front and many people are
opening their eyes and re-examining their  conduct.  

This is something good, positive.  If a blind man may at the end see a ray of 
light,
it is something of a minor miracle.  There are some, who 38 years after the 20th
Congress realise that they "no longer can continue upholding it".  That is 
good, but
hardly sufficient.  

Such people today approach the Marxists, dust off their Stalin badges, no longer
quibble with Chairman Mao.  They have a good word for the Peruvian revolution
and show concern for Chairman Gonzalo.  All of this is really very good.  

However, I think that those who would want to be considered to be back in the
camp of revolution ought to remember that they have a number of heavy debts to
pay.  Debts with the revolutionaries that never left the trenches and had to 
endure
their crossfire on behalf of Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and even down to Gorbachov. 
There are many good communists who suffered at their hands, were expelled,
victimised and hounded out from the party organisms for the only crime of 
resisting
the liquidation of the Party they gave their lives to build.  This cannot be 
ignored
either, and good comrades are right in criticising with a rod of iron. 

There is at least one minor point that the penitents of revisionism must concede
immediately:  That any "communist party" that takes 38 years to discover what 
the
masses were already absolutely clear about in their millions, can hardly claim 
the
ability, let alone the right to lead anyone anywhere.  Such people ought to sit 
in the
dock while the proletariat faces them with all their failures.  They must 
repudiate
all their conduct, all their line, which only began to unfold with the 20th 
Congress
to which they no longer adhere.  Many still need to see how can they can explain
38 years of following every pirouette of Khrushchev and his successors.  They
want to know how they ended up following in the footsteps of every treason of
revisionism, every aggression of social-imperialism, every crime of 
social-fascism. 

There are some other people that say, the blind have seen a light.  Stop 
criticising
them for the sake of unity.

I cannot agree with this position either.  To see a ray of light does not mean 
that
a blind person is cured, nor that such people are in a capacity to play a 
positive role
in forging a real unity in the service of the revolution and the people.  No, 
criticism
of revisionism must continue and deepen even more.  Those in debt to Marxism,
to the revolution, to the people, and a handful have even blood debts, cannot
escape so lightly.  They must be made an example of and must take all their
medicine.  They must purge themselves of their rotten bourgeois elements.  

However, I do not consider that criticism should be purely negative.  It is of 
course
possible that all this is a farce and the spirit of self-criticism they claim 
is not
sincere.  But still, my opinion is that we must be patient with the sick, and 
cannot
expect overnight cures even with the best medicine.  I do not think everyone can
be cured, but we should trust that the great majority can be, if not today, then
tomorrow.  

It is no good for those who remained loyal to Marxism in this occasion, to 
become
arrogant and adopt airs of infallibility.

No one is free of errors, let alone of the possibility of committing them.  We 
must
take into account that if someone has suffered an illness and becomes cured, 
even
if it took 40 years, there is a good chance that a resistance to the same bug 
may
develop.  On the other hand, those who proved immune to this strain of the virus
are not immune to any and all other varieties.  Nor are they inoculated for all 
time. 
Marxists only know of one infallible prevention and cure:  Criticism and self-
criticism.  This should never cease, on the contrary, it must become ever 
deeper,
more radical and concrete.

Lenin said, "Vacillation on the part of the petty bourgeois-democrats is 
inevitable." 
I consider that the great majority of those who followed revisionism, apart 
from a
handful of criminals and bureaucrats beyond redemption, can be regarded as
deluded masses who were followers and not ring leaders.  That, in the last
analysis, it was their petty bourgeois mentality, their lack of true Bolshevik 
spirit,
that led them to follow the class enemy.  Therefore, it is possible to apply to 
them
the terms that Lenin used about petty bourgeois democrats: "The period of our
proletarian revolution in which the differences with the Menshevik and Socialist
Revolutionary democrats were particularly acute was a historically necessary
period.  It was impossible to avoid waging a vigorous struggle against these
democrats when they swung to the camp of our enemies and set about restoring
a bourgeois and imperialist democratic republic.  Many of the slogans of this
struggle have now become frozen and petrified and prevent us from properly
assessing and taking advantage of the new period in which a change of front has
begun among these democrats, a change in our direction, not a fortuitous change,
but one rooted deep in the conditions of the international situation."  Lenin 
added:
"It is not enough to encourage this change of front and amicably greet those who
are making it.  A politician who knows what he is working for must learn to 
bring
about this change of front among the various sections and groups of the broad
mass of petty-bourgeois democrats if he is convinced that serious and deep-going
historical reasons for such a turn exist.  A revolutionary must know whom to
suppress and with whom - and when and how - to conclude an agreement." "...it
would be equally foolish and ridiculous...... to insist only on tactics of 
suppression
and terror in relation to the petty bourgeois democrats when the course of 
events
is compelling them to turn in our direction."  "The task of influencing the 
waverer
is not identical with the task of overthrowing the exploiter and defeating the 
active
enemy." " One of the most urgent tasks of the present day is to take into 
account
and make use of the turn among the Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary
democrats from hostility to Bolshevism first to neutrality and then to support
Bolshevism." (V.I. Lenin, November 20, 1918 - The Valuable Admissions of Pitirim
Sorokin, Collected Works Vol. 28, pp 185-194).

>From inside the cage of fascist tyranny, Chairman Gonzalo indicated: 

"What is unfolding in the world today?  What do we need?  We need Maoism to
be taken up by the people, and that is already happening.  We need Maoism to
take the lead in generating Communist Parties able to handle and guide this 
great
wave of the world revolution that is upon us."

How should we regard Maoism?  

We should regard Maoism as the continuation, the intensification, the deepening
and elevation of Marxism and Marxism-Leninism.  I say this because there are 
some
in our world who understand the new solely in contradiction with the old.  One-
sided people who assume Maoism to be something in "essential" contradiction with
Marxism-Leninism.  Such comrades are deeply mistaken.  Maoism is the Marxism-
Leninism of our era.  Is Marxism incorporating the decisive importance of the
theoretical and practical developments in the proletarian revolution since the 
death
of comrade Stalin.  Maoism is the most highly developed Marxism, forged in the
midst of the class struggle, in the most consistent, profound and orthodox 
manner. 

Lenin said: "a communist is expected to devote greater attention to the tasks of
tomorrow, and not of yesterday." (V. I. Lenin "Left Wing Childishness and Petty
Bourgeois Mentality, Collected Works, Vol 27, pp. 323-54).  Therefore, any
movement that undertakes to reclaim the fundamental principles of Marxism,
principles emasculated by modern revisionism, will find such principles are 
already
living more in the morrow than in the yesterday.  In communism there is no 
"return
to the past", rather there is always an advance to the future.  To advance to 
the
future one must sum up the level of present development in the light of past
accomplishments, but with eyes firmly fixed on the days to come where the
hardest battles lay. If all that heroic and glorious past is to mean anything 
at all, it
can only be in relation to the final aim, the golden future of the class and the
people.  Otherwise, like Bukharin, we would be "regarding the tasks of the
proletariat ... from the point of view of the past and not of the future", as 
Lenin
reproached him for.  Or, like old Bernstein, we may as well proclaim: "The
movement is everything, the final aim is nothing."  

That is why I have no doubt that if comrade Stalin himself could be here today 
he
would applaud this position and fully endorse it by participating in our 
struggle. 
That is why true followers of Stalin are doing precisely this right now.  
Whoever
counter-poses comrade Stalin to comrade Mao Tse-tung is not serving the
development of the proletarian cause but the interests of the class enemy.  It 
does
not matter what label this comrade may assume, Stalinist or Maoist, such comrade
has no grasp of Marxism whatsoever.  

This task of summing up the historical experience and theoretical developments 
of
the proletarian movement under the leadership of Chairman Mao, Maoism, is still
a pending task for many of us here present.  This lack too is part of the 
negative
baggage of revisionism.  We could do well by giving this immediate attention. 
Taking up Maoism is the key for resuming the advance of the proletarian cause.

How should we understand the generation of Communist Parties?  

Engels once noted that in the course of the historical development there will 
come
a time in which "the class becomes the party".  We should interpret this as an
indication of the fact that the party lives in the consciousness of the class.  
That
the disorganisation inflicted by revisionism is but a passing phenomena that 
merely
ripples in the surface of events.  The old mole is always burrowing.  The
quantitative and qualitative growth of the proletariat cannot not in any way be
interrupted by these negative winds in the super-structure.  It continues to 
develop
and therefore the Party, although in a disorganised state, lives today in the 
hearts
of the masses even more powerfully and brightly than yesterday.  

The question is to reorganise and reconstitute it on the grounds of the most
advanced Marxist theory and policies.  The question is to equip it with its
necessary organs and instruments to accomplish its tasks, that such a party may
take the lead in the class struggle and aim at the victorious accomplishment of 
the
revolution and the complete fulfilment of the unflinching tasks of the class.

This brings us again to the question of the United Front.  The Party, in a 
certain
way is also a form of united front.  A united front of Marxist revolutionaries 
that
has achieved a certain degree of homogeneity of views and established such
voluntary discipline under democratic centralist principles that allows it to 
function
and be regarded as a Party, not only by itself but by a sufficient section of 
the
masses.  We must never confuse the United Front with the Party but nevertheless
it must be affirmed that the Party is not and can never be a monolith.  
Therefore
inside the Party the same general principles of the United Front apply.  
Dimitrov
taught us:  "..unity of views is better achieved in the joint struggle against 
the
class enemy this very day"..." To propose immediate unity instead of forging a
United Front is like putting the coach in front of the horses and to think that 
it then
would move forward."                 

Our Stalin Society is this class of United Front geared to forging the basis of 
the
most homogeneous unity capable of offering fertile ground for the reconstitution
of an authentic Communist Party.  This society is not today the only United 
front
of its kind but is, in my opinion, the one that offers the best perspectives in 
this
country.  Fundamentally because this Society boldly upholds the banner of 
comrade
Stalin, a truly revolutionary banner without which there is no Marxism worth a
candle. 

Nevertheless, there are some people who say: "We must forge a Party free of any
opportunist or revisionist tendencies".  These gentlemen would be better served 
in
seeking the Holy Grail.  In our world things of such purity do not exist and 
cannot
exist. Their position does not tally with dialectics, and historical experience
demonstrates that as soon as a form of revisionism or opportunist trend is
overcome, the same tendencies reappear under new guises.  It will always be so
under conditions of class society and while diverse interests may affect even 
the
conclusions of science.  As Lenin once noted: "..if mathematics were found to
affect people's interests, there would be those that would argue that two plus 
two
make five".  The question is that Marxism is put in command and that Marxism be
the guide - principal and not subordinated, as in those opportunist 
organisations
where incense is burned to Marxism, but revisionism is the daily practice.

This principle applies even to the most Bolshevik-like Communist Party, where 
the
two-line struggle is precisely the motor that impels its development and the 
savvy
of the Party's life, without which it would come to an end.  This is even more
apposite in the case of a United Front.  Therefore struggle against revisionism 
and
opportunism, struggle for the defence and for the advance of Marxism, is a
permanent necessity that can never end this side of class society.  On the other
side, in communist society, there will still continue the struggle between 
correct
and advanced things and ideas and the incorrect and backward ones.  This is how
things stand in reality.  Whosoever thinks otherwise has unfortunately missed 
out
in vocation.  Such people should do well in seeking out a religious doctrine 
that
preaches and offers them an everlasting heaven.  They should really leave 
Marxism
alone, although precisely because of the laws of dialectics, we know they 
certainly
will not.

In synthesis, our immediate task is to strengthen the unity of our front.  To
generate a movement in defence of Marxist ideas, aiming it against the class
enemy.  To strive for revitalising the Party spirit and training successors for 
the
revolution.  We must place the United front at the top of the agenda and we 
should
put it in practice in a bold and determined fashion.

Chairman Gonzalo, writing about Jos? Carlos Mari tegui, quotes him: " "My
attitude since my incorporation in this vanguard, has always been one of a
convinced factor, of a fervent propagandist of the United Front", Mari tegui 
wrote
on May First 1924; He held that "we are still to few for us to become divided" 
and
that there was too many common tasks to accomplish in the service of the class. 
Firm advocate of the United Front, he demanded it as solidarity, concrete and
practical action on the part of those, who without losing their respective 
ideological
identities "must feel united by class solidarity, linked by the common struggle
against the common enemy, linked by the same revolutionary will and the same
passion for renewal".  And taking the standpoint of recognising that "the 
variety of
tendencies and the diversity of ideological hues within this human legion that 
is the
proletariat is inevitable", he demanded: "The important question is that those 
groups
and those tendencies be able to understand each other in the face of the 
concrete
reality of the day.  That they should not clash in Byzantine arguments, or 
mutual
excommunications and canonical condemnations.  That they should not drive the
masses away from the revolution with the sorry spectacle of the dogmatic 
quarrels
among their preachers.  That they shall not use their weapons or waste their 
time
in wounding one another, but use them in fighting the old social order, its
institutions, its injustices and its crimes".  Today these words are a living 
call
demanding that we put our unity in today's agenda, unity, like we did yesterday,
to accomplish the common "historical duties " of developing class consciousness
and class sentiments, to sow and propagate class ideals and ideas of renewal, to
rescue the workers from false institutions that claim to represent them; to 
fight
repression and the  corporative (fascist) offensive, to defend the 
organisation, the
press and the tribune of the class; to struggle for the peasants' demands.
"Historical duties" that will "merge and combine our roads" in the course of 
their
accomplishment"........ These theses tested by reality also demand that we shall
overcome sectarianism that today is a generalised problem.  We should take into
account that "the masses demand unity" and lend attentive ears to these valid 
and
commanding words: "The sincere, noble and elevated spirits in the camp of
revolution, are able to perceive and respect, beyond any theoretical barrier, 
the
historical solidarity of their efforts and of their works.  It is to the mean 
minded and
shortsighted, to those dogmatic minds that want to petrify life in a rigid 
formula
that the privilege of lack of understanding and sectarian egotism 
belong".....Let us
fight for unity today more than ever, because "a reactionary policy will cause,
finally the polarizing of the left.  The capitalist counter-offensive will 
achieve what
the instinct of the working classes could not do: the united proletarian 
front"."

Let us again turn to the words of Georgi Dimitrov: "The cause of communism
demands, not abstract, but concrete struggle against deviations; prompt and
determined rebuff to all harmful tendencies as they arise, and the timely
rectification of mistakes.  To replace the necessary concrete struggle against
deviations by a peculiar sport - hunting imaginary deviations or deviators - is 
an
intolerably harmful distortion".

In synthesis:

Today we face a fascist danger in progress.  In order to fight it and win we 
must
develop the United Front, mobilising the widest masses. To generate such a front
and to lead it, we need Communist Parties that uphold, defend and apply
proletarian ideology, Marxism, today Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.  We need to
develop a specific thought translating these universal principles in accordance 
with
the concrete reality of each country and each revolution.  

For all this we need to apply the principles of the United Front in a consistent
manner.  A Communist Party.  The party of the revolution that is needed to see 
off
fascism victoriously, will not arise from a consortium of a few individual 
figures,
nor from the fusion of a number of organisations, although individuals and
organisations may and should play an important role.  Parties like the ones we 
need
would only arise in the struggle for the common objectives. 

Party and United Front.  Party and the instruments of the revolution.  United 
Front,
in unity and struggle to forge the Party.  Party, forged in unity and struggle, 
to lead
and extend the United Front in combat, and by means of unity and struggle. 

This is what we really need, right now!