Re: Response to Adolfo Olachea on "revolutionary violence" and "accumulating revolutionary strength"

[hariette@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (hariette spierings)]

>
>On Fri, 3 May 1996, Adolfo Olaechea posted a contribution to this list
>under the subject heading "Re: Marxism in Australia: any MAOIST
>thoughts?" which was in response to two previous postings from Gary
>MacLennan and C.
>
>I thank Adolfo Olaechea for this and indicate that his comments and
>criticisms will be given the fullest consideration. There were two points
>raised by Adolfo Olaechea which I take issue with now.
>
>1. REVOLUTIONARY VIOLENCE
>> Comrade from CRCPA talks about the validity of People's War in a developed
>> country, and I have heard him before stating that "a dividing line between
>> Marxist and revisionists is the question of revolutionary violence".
>>
>> Yes, People's War is a concept of universal validity and application.  Yes,
>> those who eschew revolutionary violence can in no way be regarded as
>> marxists.  However, such a dividing line is only a relative one, and a very
>> weak one at that, because armed struggle by itself is not THE dividing line
>> between Marxism and revisionism.
>
>       But the argument was not, "armed struggle by itself is not THE
>dividing line between Marxism and revisionism." C never said "THE
>dividing line...". Is it true as Adolfo Olaechea states, that revolutionary
>violence is only a relative and weak dividing line between Marxism and
>revisionism? No it is not.
>
>       During the Chinese Communists great polemic against Khrushchov's
>revisionism the Chinese comrades stated:
>
>       "In the history of the international communist movement
>       the betrayal of Marxism and of the proletariat by the revisionists
>       has always manifested itself most sharply in their opposition to
>       violent revolution and to the dictatorship of the proletariat and in
>       their advocacy of peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism."
>
>and
>
>       "The entire history of the working-class movement tells us that
>       the acknowledgement or non-acknowledgement of violent revolution as
>       a universal law of proletarian revolution, of the necessity of
>       smashing the old state machine, and of the necessity of replacing the
>       dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by the dictatorship of the proletariat
>       has always been the watershed between Marxism and all brands of
>       opportunism and revisionism, between proletarian revolutionaries and
>       all renegades from the proletariat."
>
>(See "The Proletarian Revolution and Khruschchov's Revisionism," Eighth
>Comment on the Open Letter of the CC of the CPSU, in "The Polemic on the
>General Line of the International Communist Movement" Peking,
>(English edition) 1965, pp.361 and 366-367 respectively.)

Comments by Adolfo:


You see Comrade, it is important to knit your brows when you read before you
accidentally miss the point in any study of Marxism.  What the CPCH saying
is correct BECAUSE it transcends the mere question of revolutionary violence
and ACTUALLY LINKS it with the question of the proletarian dictatorship and
that is indeed THE DIVIDING LINE between Marxism and revisionism! No longer
diffuse and WEAK, but clear and definite.

What I was talking was about your formulation of the universal law which
centered only on the question of the use of force (forcible overthrow -
Malecki is also for forcible overthrow of the reactionary state,  he is even
for smashing it in principle - since he is for smashing anything and
everything - to use but one example, but Malecki is also AGAINST AND FOR
SMASHING the dictatorship of the proletariat in its concrete red
revolutionary line (Stalin/Mao), you see.  So the dividing line between
Maoism and Malecki is a dividing line between Marxism and revisionism of the
utmost importance, as he himself recognises when attacking Maoism in the
relentless fashion he characterises himself for.

Malecki's violence can indeed be revolutionary, if he shoots on our side,
for example, but Malecki is not Marxist, but an anarchist, and to mix this
two "schools" up more than the most extreme force of circunstances may
prescribe on certain occassions, is a very dangerous proposition!

It is true that you only said "a dividing line" but, it is also true that as
a dividing line it is, from this point of view, rather WEAK (or diffuse)
since it does allows for any Malecki very much so to come into it!

Much harder, much more concrete and clear is to say, as Lenin says, "he is
only a Marxist who extends his recognition .... to the recognition of the
necessity of the proletarian dictatorship", because the proletarian
dictatorship implies its establishment and defence by force, by
revolutionary violence, armed and by other means, but in the last analysis
forcible - meaning superior force.

Recognition of the dictatorship leads not only to the necessity of upholding
the universal truth that "power grows out of the barrel of a gun" but also
to the Leninist truth that "besides power everything is illusion".

Moreover, it implies the recognition of the necessity of the leadership of
the proletariat in the various stages of the revolution and throughout all
its historical period of dictatorship, and the exercise of it by means of
its Communist Party, a Communist Party that to be able to exercise this
dictatorship must likewise be led by the authentic proletarian revolutionary
line as historically expressed by V.I. Lenin, J.V. Stalin and Chairman Mao
Tse-tung, as well as by Chairman Gonzalo who is the continuator of the
above, and who has established Maoism as the Third, new and superior stage
of Marxism and Marxism-Leninism taking as a unity in development.

So, to be a really complete Marxist today, you must in fact be a
Marxist-Leninist-Maoist adherent of Gonzalo Thought, and moreover, apply it
consistently in everything you do.  That is also another far stronger and
even more definite dividing line today.  That is why, in comparison to this
dividing line, the one you mention is quite low grade and much less stringent.

However, that is not to be confused with the dividing line between Marxism
and revisionism either, since that would also be far too stringent under the
present conditions of the Movement's development.  But that it is a dividing
line we must aim to achieve and a gate that we must all pass, there is no doubt.

In synthesis, I still think that the question today is to establish what
conditions and what fundamental dividing lines must be traced at present in
order to serve as the basis of Communist Unity at the world level TODAY.
Obviously, recognition of revolutionary violence alone, is not sufficient,
however necessary this recognition may be in order to give revolutionary
content to the General Line.


>       There is nothing relative and weak about revolutionary violence
>being a dividing line between Marxism and revisionism. Certainly the
>phenomenon of armed revisionism exists and it too must be exposed and
>opposed. Certainly revolutionary violence is not the only dividing line
>between Marxism and revisionism as the Australian experience testifies.

Of course each country and each revolution must also put different emphasis
on which lines to strenghten and which to relax in accordance with concrete
conditions.

The question of revolutionary violence becomes a REAL, TOUGH, UNCOMPROMISING
and CLEAR dividing line between Marxists and revisionists at the very moment
in which the issue is to put words into deeds.  When the question is to be
ready to pass from the criticism of the word to the criticism by the gun!
Then we can really separate the loudmouths from the revolutionaries, and
this is then the REAL dividing line between Marxism, which is revolutionary
or it is nothing, and revisionism!  So, you and your Party are of course
correct to emphasise this point as well, since no Maoism can be conceived of
as advocating peaceful transition as its General Line.

>       The CPA(ML) was never constructed along Leninist lines as it was
>all centralism and no democracy. The CPA(ML) carried forward the CPA's
>wrong ideas on the structure of the working class in Australia. Despite
>Lenin's clarity on the split in the working class, the CPA(ML) ignored it
>and like the CPA, became consumed in trying to split the labour
>aristocracy and better-off workers from the thoroughly bourgeois
>Australian Labor Party. Thus it was that the CPA(ML) was never able to
>properly take advantage of the rebellions and revolutionary upsurges
>(such as the Penal Powers struggle of 1969) it found itself in.

We shall have enough time in the future to learn from each others
experieneces. In a couple of days - or when I have enough time available - I
will forward to the list a very inspiring article written by our comrade
Barry Levy.  Comrade Barry Levy died in February 95 in London, at the early
age of 53 years, having been born and bred in your beautiful country which
he always had very close to his heart.

He was too a great proletarian internationalist and friend of the People's
War in Peru, which, in his role, as a trade-unionist and editor of his
workplace journal, relentlessly publicised and defended, linking the issues
of the revolution to the concrete issues of the class struggle of his own
comrades at the workplace.

He played an invaluable role in the translation and editing of key works of
Chairman Gonzalo, documents of the PCP and of our own Committee of which he
was one of the most loyal and valued advisers and for which he undertook
many important commissions during many years, anonymously and selflessly
collaborating.  I think it is important that the Australian people learn a
little about him too since he was always very keen to find out how the
revolutionary movement was progressing back "home" as he always referred to
the land that gave him birth.  Do not let me forget this duty, comrade.

>2. ACCUMULATING REVOLUTIONARY STRENGTH
>> Comrade talks about the task of "accumulating revolutionary strenght" and of
>> the necessity of establishing and building up a Communist Party.  However,
>> the theory of accumulation of forces is a revisionist theory and it is not
>> linked to the question of the building of a communist party, unless you may
>> be building a Trotskyst or Avakian style party geared to waiting around for
>> "these exceptional moments in history".  Is this a marxist point of view?
>> Hardly.
>
>       I do not agree with Adolfo Olaechea on this point. I prefer the
>position of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China which
stated in point
>11 of its 1963 PROPOSAL CONCERNING THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL
>COMMUNIST MOVEMENT:
>
>       "The proletarian party... should concentrate on the painstaking
>       work of ACCUMULATING REVOLUTIONARY STRENGTH (emphasis added -- C),
>       so that it will be ready to seize victory when the conditions for
>       revolution are ripe or to strike powerful blows at the imperialists
>       and reactionaries when they launch surprise attacks and armed assaults.
>
>       "If it fails to make such preparations, the proletarian party
>       will paralyse the revolutionary will of the proletariat, disarm itself
>       ideologically and sink into a totally passive state of unpreparedness
>       both politically and organisationally, and the result will be to bury
>       the proletarian revolutionary cause."
>


No one opposses building up the NECESSARY revolutionary strenght for any
undertaking, that is only commonsense and any rush action will lead to defeat.

But if one is to understand this text as dedicating the proletarian party to
concentrating its tasks on the accumulation of forces, that indeed can under
present conditions lead to revisionist "self-cultivation" (How to be a good
communist.....party!).

It is of course a pity that you have not included here the entire quotation
>from the proposal - I do not have that document at hand and therefore I
could not see what is missing at the beginning.  However, even if the
formulation were not to be given a different meaning but its missing bits, I
think that to derive from this a theory by its mechanical aplication into a
practice that would indeed give primacy to this task, it would lead to
revisionism.

Comrade Gonzalo specifies that mass work is not for the accumulation of
forces but for the preparation and development of the People's War.

In his work Rectification Campaign, the Chairman says: "Why UPHOLD, DEFFEND
AND APPLY MARXISM-LENINISM-MAOISM, principally Maoism? In order to develop
the world revolution. The main trend in the world is revolution. There is no
future for mankind without the complete of the revolution realised as
communism.  THEREFORE THE ISSUE IS TO DEVELOP THE WORLD REVOLUTION. To
develop the world revolution can only mean applying it in practice.  What
has been said here today is a profound truth - HOW MANY WE ARE IS NOT THE
FUNDAMENTAL THING. THE IMPORTANT QUESTION IS IF WE WANT TO CARRY IT OUT OR NOT"

And he added:  "Yesterday, in 1848, Marx and Engels were but two people.
today, 143 years later, we are millions throughout the world.  Yesterday we
had nothing.  Today we have two great historical experiences rich in
lessons, experiences which are present, WHICH ARE ALIVE IN US, IN THE
PROLETARIAR AND IN THE PEOPLES".

And also to bear in mind that the tasks of the revolutionaries are not
limited to fighting with fire-weapons alone.  When there are not
fire-weapons (for example in a peasant country) pitchforks and halbards will
do, at least until we get the weapons!.  And, in a country such as
Australia, or Britain, we must remember the words of Chairman Gonzalo:

"Knowledge is generated by practice and practice is the product of the
masses.  We have held that the masses MUST BE TURNED into propagandists and
agitators, that the masses must themselves FIGHT AND RESIST and that ALL
THESE TASKS THEY KNOW HOW TO CARRY OUT.  They have always done it and
therefore IT WOULD NOT BE ANYTHING EXTRAORDINARY for them to do it now.
Which system shall we apply?"

"From mouth to ear.  The first instrument we have is the spoken word.  This
is a means which allows us to reach the deepest and profoundest layers of
the masses.  It allows us a more FLEXIBLE APPROACH since we can ADAPT THE
SPOKEN WORD to THE CONCRETE CONDITIONS OF THE AUDIENCE, be it an audience of
peasants, workers, STUDENTS, INTELLECTUALS, SOLDIERS, BUSINESSMEN, ETC." (I
think etc. covers even Gary's intended forum for which he was seeking help
and ideas, would you not agree?) "This is a more flexible, more tactical
method, always of course WITHIN A GENERAL STRATEGY".

And, finally, we, who are intellectual workers, must always remember this too:

"Let us employ the written word. WE DO NOT FIGHT ONLY WITH SWORDS, BUT ALSO
FIGHT WITH PENS.  Let us use a CLEAR AND SIMPLE LANGUAGE.  Let us use
graphics.  These are very good, for example for the illiterate peasantry.
LET US USE ALL MODERN MEANS WE CAN GET OUR HANDS ON, without forgetting that
>from among these means, the main one is the spoken word, since it is the one
which is most directly within the reach of the masses of the people".

"But a great and massive ideological movement needs the Party as THE LEADING
FORCE, because the Party is the MOST CONSCIOUS PART of such a movement since
it knows, handles and applies the ideology, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism Gonzalo
Thought, the laws that guide the revolution AND ITS POLITICS, that is, the
laws of the class struggle for the seizure of power and the People's War as
the principal form of struggle".

"Without the Party the masses would be unable to equip themselves with a
plan.  We know that A PLAN IS AN IDEOLOGY, and the Party's plan is a
Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Gonzalo Thought plan".

"Once the plan is made the Party must mobilise diverse organic apparatusses,
because a policy cannot be carried out without an organic form which can
embody it, be it the PARTY APPARATUSSES, the army, the generated organisms,
the organs of power, OR THE ORGANISMS GENERATED BY THE DEEP AND PROFOUND
MASSES.  Then the masses would be able to realise that great ideological
mobilisation to UPHOLD, DEFEND, AND APPLY Marxism-Leninism-Maoism,
principally Maoism, as a universal truth and Gonzalo Thought as SPECIFICALLY
PRINCIPAL FOR US, in its character as a creative application to our reality.
And then let the armed actions HAMMER HOME THOSE IDEAS".

"Thus only the Communist Party can lead this great process of mass
propaganda and agitation. Chairman Mao taught us:  "While masses and Party
exist, all kinds of miracles can be accomplished".

And what are some of the immediate tasks in the accomplishment of the above?
How does MOBILISING AT THE WORLD LEVEL - under real, as opposed to phoney,
M-L-M leadership in DEFENCE OF THE PERUVIAN REVOLUTION AND ITS PRINCIPLES
tie up with the Universal People's War - because as I said before, and maybe
you had not yet come into the list, we must start by conceiving of the world
revolution as a People's War ALREADY in progress that needs no further
"launching parties"?:

"Therefore, let us mobilise the masses in a deep and boundless THEORETICAL
AND IDEOLOGICAL movement of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideas.  Let us free them
>from that feudal, pro-imperialist bourgeois pile of garbage which makes them
SEE THE WORLD UPSIDE DOWN, standing on its head.  Let US FREE PHILOSOPHY
>FROM THE BOOKSHELVES, from the voluminous tomes, from THE FALSE ACADEMIC
CENTRES and carry it to the masses, to the day-to-day CLASS STRUGGLE, to the
people".

"The soul has been taken from the masses, therefore our task is to restore
it to them so that they would not let themselves be fooled any longer".

"Philosophy and science are not for the erudite but for the masses. Today
the masses ARE MORE AND MORE IMBUED WITH DIALECTICS, but they must become
CONSCIOUS of this fact.  They must consciously apply the laws of dialectics.
They must use the contradiction with full knowledge of its implications.
THEY MUST APPLY DIALECTICS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF NATURE, OF SOCIETY, OF IDEAS".

"The masses are capable of doing this because the masses are the makers of
history, the creators of everything. Moreover, we must not forget that
practice is the source of knowledge, that HUMANITY IS FUNDAMENTALLY AN AGENT
OF CHANGE and that humanity, IN ITS DAILY SOCIAL PRACTICE, implements
transformations and in the midst of them, LEARNS AND ACQUIRES KNOWLEDGE".

"WE MUST NOT FORGET THAT THIS KNOWLEDGE ACQUIRED IN PRACTICE IS AGAIN
RETURNED TO PRACTICE AND IN THIS PROCESS GENERATES CHANGES, developments,
advances and transformations, and since everything bears a class imprint,
humanity's practice, its knowledge and practice will also bear a class
imprint, that is to say, knowledge and transformations IN FAVOUR OR AGAINST
the proletariat and the people".

And in concrete, even down under in Australia:

"Practice is the source of knowledge, it is the transforming historical
action of the masses of humanity.  The masses, by means of their social
practice within a CONCRETE HISTORICAL MOMENT, equip their minds with the
ideas which correspond to that concrete historical moment AND THEREFORE ARM
THEIR HANDS IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THE TASKS PRESCRIBED BY HISTORY".

Can this not be began right now?  Is this not part of the Universal People's
War?  Cannot even Australian Maoists, even if only few today, begin today to
close ranks with Maoists all over the world, with progressives, democrats,
revolutionaries, socialistically minded people in order to develop a great
mobilisation in defence of the ideas and principles guiding the Peruvian
revolution, which, as we have demonstrated are the same of every right
thinking person in this list, regardless of his political coloring at present?

Would not they, and their party, begin to gather "revolutionary force" as a
direct by product of this kind of action?

Bear in mind too what the leader of the PCP says:

"Chairman Mao pointed out that both reaction and revolution need to generate
favourable public opinion.  The reactionaries need to generate public
opinion against the revolution and in favour of their continued
exploitation.  We need to generate favourable public opinion in order to
seize power and to defend it with revolutionary violence. Without the
winning of public opinion there cannot be seizure of power".

Therefore, waiting around for the revolution is not an option, we are
already in the revolution now!

Finally,  I will indeed appreciate if you would further me the quote from
the PROPOSAL complete.  I intend to use this example to try to explain to
our comrade Rolf that he is deeply mistaken in his blaming the PCP or
Chairman Gonzalo for the failures of RIM or the betrayal of Co-Rim.  You
see, the very name PROPOSAL already entails a practical compromise upon
which many people as Chairman Mao used to say who are maybe only 10%, 20% or
50% or more Marxists may unite.

Of course this is a proposal for a communist kind unity, and therefore it
can not be so lax as a simple proposal for a United Front.  However, the
same laws apply because there is such a thing as the "palium of Marxism" and
therefor,e the formulation of such proposals to other communist parties in
so many different parts of the world, with such different immediate
interests, are as a general rule, that much more flexible and "compromising"
than the formulations of an advance leader can be when speaking for the
advancement of theoretical understanding.

That is not to say that the PCCH would have made an opportunist proposal,
only that sometime that kind of formulations, can be also interpreted in a
revisionist manner - and also in an ultra-left way - as happened with all
kinds of Congress Resolutions in the history of the International Communist
Movement.

Adolfo Olaechea


PS: All quotations from Chairman Gonzalo in this mailer, are from his work
"On Rectification Campaign", published in May 1992 by Committee Sol-Peru,
London, and the editing work was done mainly by Comrade Barry Levy, your
fellow Australian on behalf of the Committee.





     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---