Thursday, February 21, 2019

Left Wing Communism : An Infantile Disorder by V I Lenin

Joma Sison on Infantile Communists in 21st Century

Let me make one thing clear.  Infantile “communists” cannot distinguish issues and relations in ideology from those in politics.  

A communist party can have fraternal relations with other communist parties on a MLM ideological basis and friendly anti-imperialist relations with all sorts of parties.  

In mass work, which is political, a Maoist deals with all sorts of people who have different thoughts and beliefs.  

There is no such thing as discovering  and dealing only with ready-made Maoists among the masses.  

Also, a Maoist party does not prohibit the united front organization or the people from having proto diplomatic and diplomatic relations with non-Maoist governments.
Cooperating politically with a revisionist communist party does not mean supporting it's ideological line or totally supporting  its political line or practice.  In the 1980's ther “Left” in the CPP advocated establishing CPP relations with the CPSU.  

Instead the CPP allowed  the NDF to act like the PLO and seek proto diplomatic relations with certain revisionist countries like USSR or Eastern Europe on the basis of opposing US imperialism. The CPP never agreed with Dengist revisionism and capitalist restoration.  

It also never agreed with Soviet revisionism and social imperialism.  

The CPP analyzed and recognized the revisionist character of the Dengist CCP. In continuing relations with the revisionist CCP up to 1989, the basis was political rather than ideological.  

By the early 1990's,  the CPP  took an even more clear cut and elaborate stand against Soviet and Chinese revisionism.

The CPP has opposed the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM) seeking to impose the principle of democratic centralism on communist parties in violation of the principle of equality and independence among them.  

At the same time, RIM exaggerated the status and role of the RCPUSA.  Since the dissolution of the Comintern in 1943, communist and workers’ parties have become equal to each other and independent from each other.  

There has been no Comintern Executive Committee to treat them as national sections of a world party.

The CPP has supported progressive and anti-imperialist non-Maoists like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Fidel Castro of Cuba and Kim Il Sung in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  

Politically they are more worthy than infantile “communists” who cannot distinguish ideological from political issues and ideological relations from political relations.

The "Left" opportunists in the CPP were the ones who hoped for military assistance from the Soviet Union or pro-Soviet parties from 1982 to 1988. 

They were accommodated by the CC of the CPP by letting the NDF to explore the possibility of such assistance. 

By 1988 the Maoists in the CPP started to oppose the "Left" opportunists for major  errors of line and crimes in violation of due process. 

By 1992, the Second Great Rectification Movement was launched, targeting mainly the "Left" opportunists.  Stand for Socialism Against Modern Revisionism was issued.

SOURCE: Joma Sison Interview with Harsh Thakor in Utrecht


On the one hand, Bolshevism arose in 1903 on a very firm foundation of Marxist theory. 

The correctness of this revolutionary theory, and of it alone, has been proved, not only by world experience throughout the nineteenth century, but especially by the experience of the seekings and vacillations, the errors and disappointments of revolutionary thought in Russia. 

For about half a century—approximately from the forties to the nineties of the last century—progressive thought in Russia, oppressed by a most brutal and reactionary tsarism, sought eagerly for a correct revolutionary theory, and followed with the utmost diligence and thoroughness each and every “last word” in this sphere in Europe and America. 

Russia achieved Marxism—the only correct revolutionary theory—through the agony she experienced in the course of half a century of unparalleled torment and sacrifice, of unparalleled revolutionary heroism, incredible energy, devoted searching, study, practical trial, disappointment. verification, and comparison with European experience. 

Thanks to the political emigration caused by tsarism, revolutionary Russia, in the second half of the nineteenth century, acquired a wealth of international links and excellent information on the forms and theories of the world revolutionary movement, such as no other country possessed.

On the other hand, Bolshevism, which had arisen on this granite foundation of theory, went through fifteen years of practical history (1903–17) unequalled anywhere in the world in its wealth of experience. 

During those fifteen years, no other country knew anything even approximating to that revolutionary experience, that rapid and varied succession of different forms of the movement—legal and illegal, peaceful and stormy, underground and open, local circles and mass movements, and parliamentary and terrorist forms. 

In no other country has there been concentrated, in so brief a period, such a wealth of forms, shades, and methods of struggle of all classes of modern society, a struggle which, owing to the backwardness of the country and the severity of the tsarist yoke, matured with exceptional rapidity, and assimilated most eagerly and successfully the appropriate “last word” of American and European political experience.

No comments: