Report on the International Communist Seminar
from May 2-4, 1997 in Brussels
Ludo Martens
From May 2-4, the sixth International Seminar for the unification of the International
Communist Movement was held in Brussels. 74 parties and organisations attended the
Seminar, while 24 others sent a message of solidarity.
The video-taped intervention of the chairman of the Communist Party of Albania, Comrade
Hysni Milloshi, as well as the presence of the four parties from the former Soviet Union -
the Russian Communist Workers Party represented by Yuri Terentiev, the All-Union Communist
Party of Bolsheviks represented by Alexandre Barychev, Working Russia/United Party of
Soviet Communists represented by Victor Anpilov and the Russian Workers' and Peasants'
Party represented by Michail Popov were quite remarkable.
1.
The general theme of this year's seminar was the current significance of the road of
the October Revolution.
Compared with the previous years, a larger number of participants has intervened on
controversial issues and the discussion was of a high level.
Several participants stressed that the reports were better prepared and that they all
contributed interesting elements, even as they may have expressed opposite positions.
Several participants particularly appreciated the confrontation of very diverse
experiences, judging this most stimulating for further reflection.
Participants from Africa stressed that the seminar has strongly encouraged them,
strengthening their determination: to see that communists are organising themselves, are
fighting and are obtaining victories throughout the world, is vital for their morale.
The higher degree of participation of the different delegations was due to a better
preparation. The formula: main reports, supportive reports, reports on specific
experiences and replies to them must be maintained. This has allowed for a better quality
of the discussions.
It is essential that the main resource persons be identified on time and that their texts
be submitted to the secretariat early January 1998, so that they can be translated and
sent to the participants one month before the seminar. The richness of debate depends on
the possibility of all participants to prepare their remarks and observations on the main
reports beforehand.
Some found that the programme was overloaded, that the topics could not be dealt with
extensively and that there was not sufficient time for contributions and comments. Others,
however, think that it is good to get a maximum of information in the course of three
days, that they have a whole year to study and analyse all materials and that we should
keep all this in mind for the 1998 seminar.
In the future, we intend to reserve more time for debate, while making a maximum of
reports and documents available to the participants. In order to succeed, the final agenda
should be defined at the beginning of August and the reports must be submitted within the
timeframe agreed upon.
2.
The broad character of the seminar was clearly manifested by the presence of many
parties coming from diverse horizons.
With the experience of the previous years in mind, the broadness of the seminar has been
better accepted and its advantages more appreciated. There was less animosity when
divergent positions were expressed.
The practice of the seminar, namely listening to the different interventions, discussing
during the sessions, and exchanging opinions during bilateral meetings, has brought about
a change of attitude for many participants. Everyone has got to know and appreciate
parties belonging to other tendencies with whom they previously didn't have any contact.
There was a better understanding that parties who used to belong to different tendencies,
who supported the positions of Mao Zedong or Brezhnev, of Che Guevara or Enver Hoxha, can
unite on the basis of Marxism-Leninism, proletarian internationalism and the struggle
against revisionism. A resolution to support the Communist Party of Albania was signed by
many parties who previously supported the Soviet Union, China or Cuba. Several
participants have underlined that the critique of Krushchev's and Brezhnev's revisionism
made by the parties of the former Soviet Union, has gained depth. The parties of the
former Soviet Union, who insist on the need for the international coordination of the
Marxist-Leninist parties, have understood better the difficulties of this task, due to
inherited ideological differences. They have stated their willingness to advance
cautiously, step by step, in the process of unification.
In his highly appreciated intervention, Comrade Hysni Milloshi, chairman of the
Communist Party of Albania, set forth viewpoints that are entirely in accordance with the
orientation on which the International Communist Seminar is based.
Hysni Milloshi said:
"I agree with the platform for the defense of Marxism-Leninism and the struggle
against revisionism and opportunism as put forward at the Brussels seminars, .
We, communists, know very well that Marxism has been attacked while claiming adherence to
it. We must organise a debate on this problem, in which the communists express their
concepts in a sincere and open manner, with the major objective of advancing towards the
so needed unity of the International Communist Movement. In my opinioin only the
communists, united the world over in the big party of the proletariat, will be the
locomotive to lead the train of humanity to people's democracy, socialism and communism. I
do not think that this unity will come about easily nor from one day to the other. This
unity must be obtained on a healthy basis, bereft of all opportunism, liberalism and
dogmatism.
It has been a tradition that in the Brussels seminar parties supporting the line of Mao
Zedong and others supporting the line of Enver Hoxha take part. Other participating
parties get their inspiration from the Cuban revolution and Che Guevara, while still
others identify themselves as independent. It is but natural that different parties have
different opinions on the different communist leaders and revolutionaries, but it is
necessary, after debate conducted in a scientific manner, to arrive at conclusions and to
surmount prejudices and sentiments. Before glorifying or denigrating communist leaders,
they should be read and their writings confronted with the historical truth. Chairman Mao
Zedong was a great revolutionary leader. He has done a lot for the Chinese people and he
was a friend of the Albanian people. And yet at several points in time, Enver Hoxha
expressed principled ideological contradictions with Chairman Mao Zedong. This is
something entirely normal in the life and works of communist leaders. Whether the
ideological debates between communist leaders were justified or not, only history can
judge, guided by Marxism-Leninism.
When parties have ideological differences on one issue or another, these can be worked out
gradually, in a process of strengthening the confidence in the highest ideals of humanity,
but without allowing opportunism.
The contacts between parties, the discussions and relations between them must certainly be
based on equality and sincerety. Each party has its identity and individuality, its
practical and ideological independence, its internal matters.
If we arrive at a unity of concepts regarding the international tasks of the working
class, cooperation in common actions will give birth to the only international force that
can defend the interests of the revolution and of world socialism in a principled way.
Until now the International Communist Movement has not fulfilled its tasks toward small
Albania while the latter was attacked and destroyed by traitors inside our country and by
the international bourgeoisie. This is a shame for the communist movement in Europe and in
the world. I think that, independent of the different currents, it is the duty of the
parties present at the Brussels seminar to raise their voice against the internal and
external forces that have caused the Albanians a tragedy without precedent in the history
of this century. This year a spontaneous popular revolution has erupted in Albania. I
think it would be interesting to make this known to all progressive forces. A resolution
signed by all parties would be an act of humanity for the people who have remained and
will remain the friend of the peoples of the whole world."
3.
The objection most frequently formulated against the approach of the International
Seminar for unification is that before uniting, an ideological unity should be obtained
through principled struggle.
In the current conditions, to insist on this road amounts to maintaining the divisions and
creating new ones.
For four years, from 1992 to 1995, the participants in the International Communist Seminar
discussed the issue of which road to follow in order to realise the unification of the
International Communist Movement. These discussions resulted in the "Proposals for
the Unification", which contain a number of ideological and political positions. The
Proposals form the minimum common framework that allows Marxist-Leninist organisations of
different tendencies to meet, exchange experiences and analyses and take common
initiatives. This framework allows the undertaking of a process of theoretical and
political unification.
Patrick Kessel has written 41 pages to criticise this approach. He states: "We must
fight without compromise for ideological unity". This "without compromise"
consists of, among other things, the thesis that since the death of Stalin only Enver
Hoxha has correctly conducted the anti-revisionist struggle, that Mao has never been a
Marxist and that the same holds true for Castro and Kim Il Sung. Kessel's "unity
without compromise" also implies unity on the position that a bourgeois dictatorship
was installed in the Soviet Union since 1956, on social-imperialism, on the
counterrevolutionary Third World theory formulated by Mao Zedong, on the
counterrevolutionary nature of the Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia, etc. Kessel
declares that on all these issues, antagonistic divergences have arisen which should first
be clarified before uniting.
With the group of Ischia, Comrade Kessel proposes to conduct a "scientific
debate" until there is "clarity in the theoretical and historical fields",
which would permit "to form a united International based on principles".
Somewhere in his text, Patrick Kessel evokes the hypothesis that Marxism-Leninism may
become "a rusty weapon, honoured only by some powerless sects". We fear that at
the end of his long "struggle without compromise", he will find himself exactly
in that situation.
Certain Maoist parties have also put forward this principle of "struggle for
ideological unity without compromise". For them, ideological unity consists in
recognising Mao Zedong Thought as the third stage of the revolutionary proletarian theory,
after those of Marxism and Leninism.
These different positions, seemingly "firm on principles", amount to maintaining
the divisions between the parties that used to adhere to the Maoist, Albanian or Soviet
orientation and the parties that have followed none of these three tendencies.
But not only are these divisions maintained, new ones are created in the process. In fact,
the works of Enver Hoxha are not sufficient to maintain the ideological and political
unity among the parties that adhere to them. Patrick Kessel has linked up with the Ischia
group (L'Uguaglianzia of Italy; the Alliance Marxist-Leninist of the United States and
Canada and the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Turkey) to create a new International.
But the majority of the parties who have followed the line of Enver Hoxha are already with
the International Conference of Quito - a conference which , by the way, has known several
serious internal differences.
Similarly, the works of Mao Zedong are not sufficient to maintain the unity among the
parties that adhere to them, for at least five different orientations can be distinguished
among them.
These divisions and subdivisions necessarily diminish the richness of the discussions and
exchanges within each grouping. Similarly, they facilitate the adoption of unilateral
positions that could have been avoided through larger, contradictory debates.
The divisions and subdivisions have also for result that theoretical and ideological
discussions are preferred over the exchange of and discussion on political experiences.
Marxist-Leninist parties that are really involved in the class struggle of the workers and
the toiling masses can always learn from each other, even if they belong to different
"ideological schools". It is impossible for a fighting unity in the common
struggle, based on Marxism-Leninism, to emerge by focusing the debate on this or that
thesis of Mao Zedong or Enver Hoxha or on the interpretation of the cultural revolution or
of the Soviet intervention of Czechoslovakia. We communists have practical tasks, the
class struggle doesn't wait until we will have attained our unification. Exchanges of
practical experiences and the organisation of certain common activities and campaigns will
play a big role in the unification and will facilitate the theoretical discussions. As was
emphasised by Comrade Hysni Milloshi, all communists, whether they support Mao or Enver
Hoxha, Che Guevara or Ho Chi Min, have the duty to support the struggle of the Albanian
people and their communist party. Such common practice will also create better conditions
for a healthy discussion on the differences some may have on this or that position of
Enver Hoxha.
Finally, the divisions and subdivisions bring damage to the aura of the Marxist-Leninist
ideology and politics. It is only through their unity and common actions that the
Marxist-Leninist parties can have a growing influence in the world. The crisis of the
international capitalist system pushes the popular masses to the Left, but the bourgeoisie
uses social-democracy, revisionism and Trotskyism to destroy their revolutionary zest. An
effective struggle against revisionism, Trotskyism and social-democracy necessitates the
unity of the communists.
4.
Taking each serious theoretical or political divergence as point of departure for a
split, is a "Left" opportunist attitude.
The integral defense of Leninism demands an ideological fight principally against
revisionism but also against "Left" opportunism. The universality of Leninism
must be emphasised, while at the same time recognising the particularities of each
revolution.
On this matter, Lenin has left us with two principles.
More than anything, Lenin has underlined the international significance of the principles
of the October Revolution. "Certain fundamental features of our revolution have an
international significance ... in the narrowest sense of the word, taking international
significance to mean the international validity or the historical inevitability of a
repetition, on an international scale, of what has taken place in our country... The
Russian model reveals to all countries something ... highly significant of their near and
inevitable future." (Left-wing Communism, an infantile disorder, Collected Works,
Progress Ed., Moscow 1980, vol.31, p.21-22).
At the same time, Lenin stressed the necessity to adapt the fundamental principles to the
particularities of each country. "What is the meaning of the tales told by Serrati
and his party about the Russians only wanting everyone to imitate them? We want the very
opposite ... we are opposed beforehand to Communists who know this of that resolution by
heart. The mark of true communists is to break with opportunism ... fundamental
revolutionary principles must be adapted to the specific conditions in the various
contries. The revolution in Italy will run a different course from that in Russia... How?
Neither you nor we know ... there was as yet no communism in Italy... The latter has
stilll to be created... And the first step along this road is a final break with the
Mensheviks." (Third Congress of the Communist International, Collected Works,
Progress Ed., Moscow 1980, vol.32, p.454-465)
In order to found the Communist International, Lenin has fought Kautskyism and the other
variants of revisionism which negated the universal value of the road of the October
Revolution. But Lenin also had to fight energetically against the "Left"
opportunism, for whom the essential point was the repetition of the 'truths' drawn from
the October Revolution.
For Lenin, the essential point was the integration of the universal truths of the October
Revolution with the specific revolutionary practice corresponding to the particularities
of each country.
Lenin reiterated his vigilance against sectarianism and scholasticism by stressing that
each victorious socialist revolution would not only have certain specific characteristics,
but would also necessarily suffer from certain weaknesses and limitations. Exaggerating
these weaknesses and limitations and making a breaking point of them would be a
petit-bourgeois approach of the worst kind. Lenin declared: "The teachers of
socialism ... insisted on the 'long birthing pains' of the new society, the latter being
nothing but an abstraction and unable to come to life if not through numerous concrete
attempts, diverse and imperfect, that aim for the creation of this or that socialist
State." (CW, vol.32) "The perfect socialism can only be the end result of the
revolutionary collaboration of the proletarians of all countries, after numerous attempts,
each of which, considered separately, would be unilateral and suffering from a certain
disproportion." (CW, vol.32)
The Communist International was founded with the Bolchevik Party of the Soviet Union at
its core. In the other countries, the communist groups were far from having attained the
same political maturity. Lenin employed flexible tactics to regroup a maximum of forces
around some essential points: to break with social-democracy, with its
counterrevolurionary wing (Scheidemann) as well was with its "Left" wing
(Kautsky); to build a strong and united communist party capable of conquering the majority
of the workers and of leading the masses; to take the road of socialist revolution and the
dictatorship of the proletariat.
In order to attain this objective, Lenin proved to be very flexible. Regarding the
"Left" opportunists he said: "As long as sufficiently strong, experienced
and influential communist parties have not yet been formed, we must tolerate the presence
of semi-anarchist elements at our international congresses." His arguments:
"Certain elements are still susceptible to educating themselves; the experience of
the great revolutions has almost entirely been forgotten in Western Europe, and to pass
from twaddle about revolution to veritable revolutionary action is very difficult, long
and painful." (CW, vol.32)
In March 1921, the German "Left" opportunists prematurely pushed for an
insurrection. This "Leftism" threatened the future of the communist movement in
Germany and Lenin fought it vehemently. "To be able to explain and rectify these
errors, one had to be in the Right wing at the IIIrd Congress of the Communist
International. ... (The Leftists) simply shouted against 'Menshevism' and 'centrism'...
These people made revolutionary Marxism a caricature and the struggle against 'centrism' a
ridiculous sport." (CW, vol.32)
5.
Today the problem of the unification of the communist parties and organisastions poses
itself in a particular context.
The complete restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe has
finally and conclusively shown that the road of revisionism, initiated by Krushchev, is
the road promoted by the internal and international bourgeoisie to liquidate the
dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism.
This restoration, combined with the concomitant anticommunist offensive and with the
propagation of social-democratic and Trotskyite theses, has also heightened the confusion
among many anti-imperialist and anticapitalist forces.
Globalisation and internationalisation have resulted in intensified oppression and
exploitation in the countries dominated by the multinationals of the three centres of
imperialism. The situation of the working class and of the toiling masses has worsened in
the imperialist world as well as in the formerly socialist countries and in the countries
under domination. The capitalist forces of the whole world are waging a concerted
offensive against the working class. Today a concerted reply by the Marxist-Leninists,
that reflects the over-all and historical interests of the workers and the toiliers of the
whole world, is a clear necessity.
Numerous struggles and conflicts have afflicted the International Communist Movement since
1954-1956, the dates of the rehabilitation of Titoism and of the denunciation of the
revolutionary policies of Stalin. The communist movement is divided and fragmented, and a
number of parties find themselves isolated.
Many parties only have a limited experience, and no single party has the political weight
and the material resources needed to lead in the process of unification.
In such conditions, the unification is a delicate process and difficult to manage, and
requires the cooperation of several parties. Sectarianism and the habit to stick to just
one's "old comrades" must be banned. What is needed is a willingness to unite
with all those who base themselves on Marxism-Leninism and are opposed to revisionism, and
also caution and a sense of initiative.
The four parties of the former Soviet Union underlined the danger of a new
Social-Democratic International arising, that would adhere to the fashionable communism of
the Gorbachov-Zhuganov type and that would once more push the workers along the road of
class reconciliation.
They praised the results of the Seminar, the mutuallly enriching exhange of views and the
fact that on certain important questions the participants have become closer to one
another.
But they are of the opinion that the class struggle will not wait, and that we should not
only talk but above all act together. They made an appeal for a coordinated effort to
support the most important struggles that are being waged on the international scene. They
think that the communists should jointly manifest themselves in concrete actions.
In this vein, the Seminar has taken two decisions.
First of all, the Seminar will publish the book "The collapse of the Soviet Union:
causes and lessons", that contains contributions of different parties who participate
in the Seminar. Likewise, two issues will be published of a theoretical journal that will
contain the reports of the 1997 International Communist Seminar.
Further, the Seminar has discussed three resolutions on Korea, Albania and Cuba. These
were presented to the participants for signing. The Seminar demands that propositions of
resolutions and common actions be submitted before the opening of the 1998 Seminar, so
that they may be discussed in depth.
The Soviet parties have made an appeal to all participants to reflect on the concrete
steps to take to act together, and to formulate propositions in this regard. Victor
Anpilov has made the suggestion that party representatives visit countries where important
struggles are going on. It would be useful to communicate their reports and analyses to
the other parties participating in the Seminar.
Workers' Party of Belgium (WPB)
171 Boulevard Lemonnier
B-1000 Brussels, Belgium
Tel: + 32 2 513 77 60
Fax: + 32 2 513 98 31
E-mail ics[at]icsbrussels.org