imc indymedia

Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News

white themeblack themered themetheme help
About Us Contact Us Calendar Publish RSS
Features
latest news
best of news
syndication
commentary


KILLRADIO

VozMob

ABCF LA

A-Infos Radio

Indymedia On Air

Dope-X-Resistance-LA List

LAAMN List




IMC Network:

Original Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotech

Surviving Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv
printable version - js reader version - view hidden posts - tags and related articles

Stand for Socialism against Modern Revisionism

by Armando Liwanag Tuesday, Nov. 01, 2011 at 8:19 AM

Revisionism is the systematic revision of and deviation from Marxism, the basic revolutionary principles of the proletariat laid down by Marx and Engels and further developed by the series of thinkers and leaders in socialist revolution and construction. The revisionists call themselves Marxists, even claim to make an updated and creative application of Marxism but they do so essentially to sugarcoat the bourgeois antiproletarian and anti-Marxist ideas that they propagate.

The classical revisionists who dominated the Second International

in 1912 were in social-democratic parties that acted as tails to

bourgeois regimes and supported the war budgets of the capitalist

countries in Europe. They denied the revolutionary essence of

Marxism and the necessity of proletarian dictatorship, engaged in

bourgeois reformism and social pacifism and supported colonialism

and modern imperialism. Lenin stood firmly against the classical

revisionists, defended Marxism and led the Bolsheviks in

establishing the first socialist state in 1917.

The modern revisionists were in the ruling communist parties in

the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. They systematically revised

the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism by denying the

continuing existence of exploiting classes and class struggle and

the proletarian character of the party and the state in socialist

society. And they proceeded to destroy the proletarian party and

the socialist state from within. They masqueraded as communists

even as they gave up Marxist-Leninist principles. They attacked

Stalin in order to replace the principles of Lenin with the

discredited fallacies of his social democratic opponents and

claimed to make a "creative application" of Marxism-Leninism.

The total collapse of the revisionist ruling parties and regimes

in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, has made it so much

easier than before for Marxist-Leninists to sum up the emergence

and development of socialism and the peaceful evolution of

socialism into capitalism through modern revisionism. It is

necessary to trace the entire historical trajectory and draw the

correct lessons in the face of the ceaseless efforts of the

detractors of Marxism-Leninism to sow ideological and political

confusion within the ranks of the revolutionary movement.

Among the most common lines of attack are the following:

"genuine" socialism never came into existence; if socialism ever

existed, it was afflicted with or distorted by the "curse" of

"Stalinism", which could never be exorcised by his anti-Stalin

successors and therefore Stalin was responsible even for the

anti-Stalin regimes after his death; and socialism existed up to

1989 or 1991 and was never overpowered by modern revisionism

before then or that modern revisionism never existed and it was

an irremediably "flawed" socialism that fell in 1989-1991.

There are, of course, continuities as well as discontinuities

from the Stalin to the post-Stalin periods. But social science

demands that a leader be held responsible mainly for the period

of his leadership. The main responsibility of Gorbachov for his

own period of leadership should not be shifted to Stalin just as

that of Marcos, for example, cannot be shifted to Quezon. It is

necessary to trace the continuities between the Stalin and the

post-Stalin regimes. And it is also necessary to recognize the

discontinuities, especially because the post-Stalin regimes were

anti-Stalin in character. In the face of the efforts of the

imperialists, the revisionists and the unremoulded petty

bourgeois to explain everything in anti-Stalin terms and to

condemn the essential principles and the entire lot of

Marxism-Leninism, there is a strong reason and necessity to

recognize the sharp differences between the Stalin and

post-Stalin regimes. The phenomenon of modern revisionism

deserves attention, if we are to explain the blatant restoration

of capitalism and bourgeois dictatorship in 1989-91.

After his death, the positive achievements of Stalin (such as the

socialist construction, the defense of the Soviet Union, the high

rate of growth of the Soviet economy, the social guarantees,

etc.) continued for a considerable while. So were his errors

continued and exaggerated by his successors up to the point of

discontinuing socialism. We refer to the denial of the existence

and the resurgence of the exploiting classes and class struggle

in Soviet society; and the unhindered propagation of the

petty-bourgeois mode of thinking and the growth of the

bureaucratism of the monopoly bureaucrat bourgeoisie in command

of the great mass of petty-bourgeois bureaucrats.

From the Khrushchov period through the long Brezhnev period to

the Gorbachov period, the dominant revisionist idea was that the

working class had achieved its historic tasks and that it was

time for the Soviet leaders and experts in the state and ruling

party to depart from the proletarian stand. The ghost of Stalin

was blamed for bureaucratism and other ills. But in fact, the

modern revisionists promoted these on their own account and in

the interest of a growing bureaucratic bourgeoisie. The general

run of new intelligentsia and bureaucrats was petty

bourgeois-minded and provided the social base for the monopoly

bureaucrat bourgeoisie. In the face of the collapse of the

revisionist ruling parties and regimes, there is in fact cause

for the Party to celebrate the vindication of its

Marxist-Leninist, antirevisionist line. The correctness of this

line is confirmed by the total bankruptcy and collapse of the

revisionist ruling parties, especially the Communist Party of the

Soviet Union, the chief disseminator of modern revisionism on a

world scale since 1956. It is clearly proven that the modern

revisionist line means the disguised restoration of capitalism

over a long period of time and ultimately leads to the

undisguised restoration of capitalism and bourgeois dictatorship.

The supraclass sloganeering of the petty bourgeoisie has been the

sugarcoating for the antiproletarian ideas of the big bourgeoisie

in the Soviet state and party.

In the Philippines, the political group that is most embarrassed,

discredited and orphaned by the collapse of the revisionist

ruling parties and regimes is that of the Lavas and their

successors. It is certainly not the Communist Party of the

Philippines, reestablished in 1968. But the imperialists, the

bourgeois mass media and certain other quarters wish to confuse

the situation and try to mock at and shame the Party for the

disintegration of the revisionist ruling parties and regimes.

They are barking at the wrong tree.

There are elements who have been hoodwinked by such catchphrases

of Gorbachovite propaganda as "socialist renewal", "perestroika",

"glasnost" and "new thinking" and who have refused to recognize

the facts and the truth about the Gorbachovite swindle even after

1989, the year when modern revisionism started to give way to the

open and blatant restoration of capitalism and bourgeois

dictatorship. There are a handful of elements within the Party

who continue to follow the already proven anticommunist,

antisocialist and pseudodemocratic example of Gorbachov and who

question and attack the vanguard role of the working class

through the Party, democratic centralism, the essentials of the

revolutionary movement, and the socialist future of the

Philippine revolutionary movement. Their line is aimed at nothing

less than the negation of the basic principles of the Party and

therefore the liquidation of the Party.

I. The Party's Marxist-Leninist Stand Against Modern

Revisionism

The proletarian revolutionary cadres of the Party who have

continuously adhered to the Marxist-Leninist stand against modern

revisionism and have closely followed the developments in the

Soviet Union and Eastern Europe since the early 1960s are not

surprised by the flagrant antisocialist and antidemocratic

outcome of modern revisionism. The Party should never forget that

its founding proletarian revolutionary cadres had been able to

work with the remnants of the old merger Party of the Communist

and Socialist parties since early 1963 only for so long as there

was common agreement that the resumption of the anti-imperialist

and antifeudal mass struggle meant the resumption of the

new-democratic revolution through revolutionary armed struggle

and that the old merger party would adhere to the revolutionary

essence of Marxism-Leninism and reject the Khrushchovite

revisionist line of bourgeois populism and pacifism and the

subsequent Khrushchovism without Khrushchov of the Brezhnev

regime.

So, in April 1967 when the Lava revisionist renegades violated

the common agreement and ignored the Executive Committee that had

been formed in 1963, it became necessary to lay the ground for

the reestablishment of the Party as a proletarian revolutionary

party. Everyone can refer to the diametrically opposed

proclamations of the proletarian revolutionaries and the Lava

revisionist renegades which were disseminated in the Philippines

and published respectively in Peking (Beijing) Review and the

Prague Information Bulletin within the first week of May 1967.

The reestablishment of the Party on the theoretical foundation of

Marxism-Leninism on December 26, 1968 necessarily meant the

criticism and repudiation of all the subjectivist and opportunist

errors of the Lava revisionist group and the modern revisionism

practised and propagated by this group domestically and by one

Soviet ruling clique after another internationally.

The criticism and repudiation of modern revisionism are a

fundamental component of the reestablishment and rebuilding of

the Party and are inscribed in the basic document of

rectification, "Rectify Errors and Rebuild the Party" and the

Program and Constitution of the Party. These documents have

remained valid and effective. No leading organ of the CPP has

ever had the power and the reason to reverse or reject the

criticism and repudiation of modern revisionism by the Congress

of Reestablishment in 1968.

In the late 1970s, the Party decided to expand the international

relations of the revolutionary movement in addition to the

Party's relations with Marxist-Leninist parties and organizations

abroad. The international representative of the National

Democratic Front began to explore possibilities for the NDF to

act like the Palestinian Liberation Organization, African

National Congress and other national liberation movements in

expanding friendly and diplomatic relations with all forces

abroad that are willing to extend moral and material support to

the Philippine revolutionary struggle on any major issue and to

whatever extent. This line in external relations was in

consonance with the Marxist-Leninist stand of the Party and the

international united front against imperialism.

In 1983, a definite proposal to the Central Committee came up

that the NDF or any of its member organizations vigorously seek

friendly relations with the ruling parties in the Soviet Union

and Eastern Europe as well as with parties and movements closely

associated with the CPSU. However, this proposal was laid aside

in favor of the counterproposal made by the international liaison

department (ILD) of the Party Central Committee that the Party

rather than the NDF explore and seek "fraternal" relations with

the ruling parties of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and

other related parties.

Veering Away from the Antirevisionist Line

This counterproposal disregarded the fact that the Lava

revisionist group had already preempted our Party from the

possibility of "fraternal" relations with the revisionist ruling

parties. More significantly, the counterproposal did not take

into serious consideration the Marxist-Leninist stand of the

Party against modern revisionism.

Notwithstanding the ill-informed and unprincipled basis for

seeking "fraternal" relations with the revisionist ruling parties

and the absence of any congress withdrawing the correct

antirevisionist line, the staff organ in charge of international

relations proceeded in 1984 to draft and circulate a policy

paper, "The Present World Situation and the CPP's General

International Line and Policies" describing the CPSU as a

Marxist-Leninist party, the Soviet Union as the most developed

socialist country and as proletarian internationalist rather than

social-imperialist, as having supported third world liberation

movements and as having attained military parity with the United

States. This policy paper was presented to the 1985 Central

Committee Plenum and the latter decided to conduct further

studies on it.

In 1986, the Executive Committee of the Central Committee

commissioned a study of the Soviet Union and East European

countries. The study was superficial. It was done to support the

predetermined conclusion that these countries were socialist

because their economies were still dominated by state-owned

enterprises and these enterprises were still growing and because

the state still provided social guarantees to the people. The

study overlooked the fact that the ruling party in command of the

economy was no longer genuinely proletarian and that state-owned

enterprises since the time of Khrushchov had already become

milking cows of corrupt bureaucrats and private entrepreneurs who

colluded under various pretexts to redirect the products to the

"free" (private) market.

By this time, the attempt to deviate from the antirevisionist

line of the Party was clearly linked to the erroneous idea that

total victory in the Philippine revolution could be hastened by

"regularizing" the few thousands of NPA fighters with

importations of heavy weapons and other logistical requisites

from abroad, by skipping stages in the development of people's

war and in building the people's army and by arousing the forces

for armed urban insurrection in anticipation of some sudden "turn

in the situation" to mount a general uprising.

There was the notion that the further development of the people's

army and the people's war depended on the importation of heavy

weapons and getting logistical support from abroad and that the

failure to import these would mean the stagnation or

retrogression of the revolutionary forces because there is no

other way by which the NPA could overcome the enemy's

"blockhouse" warfare and control of the highways except through

the use of sophisticated heavy weapons (antitank and laser-guided

missiles) which necessarily have to be imported from abroad.

In the second half of 1986, with the approval of the Party's

central leadership, a drive was started to seek the establishment

of "fraternal" relations with the CPSU and other revisionist

ruling parties as well as nonruling ones close to the CPSU. A

considerable amount of resources was allotted to and expended on

the project.

In late 1986, some Brezhnevites within the CPSU and some other

quarters made the suggestion that the Communist Party of the

Philippines merge with the Lava revisionist group in order to

gain "fraternal" relations with the CPSU. But such a suggestion

was tactfully rejected with the countersuggestion that the CPSU

and other revisionist ruling parties could keep their fraternal

relations with the Lava group while the CPP could have friendly

relations with them. We stood pat on the Leninist line of

proletarian party-building.

Up to 1987 the failure to establish relations with the

revisionist ruling parties was interpreted by some elements as

the result of the refusal on the part of our Party to repudiate

its antirevisionist line. These elements had to be reminded in

easily understood practical terms that if the antirevisionist

line of the Party had been withdrawn and the revisionist ruling

parties would continue to rebuff our offer of "fraternal" or

friendly relations with them, then the proposed opportunism would

be utterly damaging to the Party.

By 1987, the Party became aware that the Gorbachov regime was

already laying the ground for the emasculation of the revisionist

ruling parties in favor of an openly bourgeois state machinery in

the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe by allowing his advisors,

officials of the Academy of Social Sciences and the official as

well as independent Soviet mass media to promote pro-imperialist,

anticommunist and antisocialist ideas under the guise of social

democracy and "liberal" communism. On the occasion of the 70th

anniversary of the October Revolution, Gorbachov himself

delivered a speech abandoning the anti-imperialist struggle and

describing imperialism as having shed off its violent character

in an integral world in which the Soviet Union and the United

States and other countries can cooperate in the common interest

of humanity's survival.

In 1987, the chairman of the Party's Central Committee made an

extensive interview on the question of establishing relations

with the ruling parties of the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and

elsewhere. This was made in response to the demand from some

quarters within the Party that the Party repudiate its line

against revisionism and apologize to the CPSU for having

criticized the Soviet Union on the question of Cambodia and

Afghanistan. The interview clarified that the Party can establish

friendly relations with the ruling parties even while the latter

maintained their "fraternal" relations with the Lava group.

Failed Efforts at Establishing Relations

In June 1988, the "World Situation and Our Line" was issued to

replace "The Present World Situation and the CPP's General

International Line and Policies". The correct and positive side

of the new document reiterated the principles of national

integrity, independence, equality noninterference and mutual

support and mutual benefit to guide the Party's international

relations; and upheld the basic principles of socialism,

anti-imperialism and proletarian internationalism and peaceful

coexistence as a diplomatic policy. Furthermore, it noted and

warned against the unhealthy trends of cynicism, anticommunism,

nationalism, consumerism, superstition, criminality and the like

already running rampant in the countries ruled by the revisionist

parties.

The negative side included accepting at face value and endorsing

the catchphrases of Gorbachov; describing the revisionist regimes

as socialist under a "lowered" definition; and diplomatic

avoidance of the antirevisionist terms of the Party.

In the course of trying to establish friendly relations with the

revisionist ruling parties in 1987 and onward, Party

representatives were able to discern that Gorbachov and his

revisionist followers were reorganizing these parties towards

their eventual weakening and dissolution. Despite Gorbachov's

avowed line of allowing the other East European ruling parties to

decide matters for themselves, Soviet agents pushed these parties

to reorganize themselves by replacing Brezhnevite holdovers at

various levels with Gorbachovites and subsequently paralyzed the

Party organizations. However, it would be in 1989 that it became

clear without any doubt that all the revisionist ruling parties

and regimes were on the path of self-disintegration, blatant

restoration of capitalism and bourgeois dictatorship under the

slogans of "multiparty democracy" and "economic reforms".

It is correct for the Party to seek friendly relations with any

foreign party or movement on the basis of anti-imperialism. But

it is wrong to go into any "fraternal" relations involving the

repudiation of the Party's Marxist-Leninist stand against modern

revisionism.

In this regard, we must be self-critical for wavering or

temporarily veering away from the Party's antirevisionist line

and engaging in a futile expedition. The motivation was to seek

greater material and moral support for the Filipino people's

revolutionary struggle. Although such motivation is good, it can

only mitigate but cannot completely excuse the departure from the

correct line. The error is a major one but it can be rectified

through education far more easily than other errors unless

ideological confusion over the developments in the Soviet Union

and Eastern Europe is allowed to continue. Most comrades assigned

to do international work were merely following the wrong line

from above.

The worst damage caused by the unconsummated and belated

flirtation with the revisionist ruling parties in the Soviet

Union and Eastern Europe is not so much the waste of effort and

resources but in the circulation of incorrect ideas, such as that

these parties were still socialist and that the availability or

nonavailability of material assistance from them, especially

heavy weapons, would spell the advance or stagnation and

retrogression of the Philippine revolutionary movement. It should

be pointed out that the Lava group had the best of relations with

these parties since the sixties but this domestic revisionist

group never amounted to anything more than being an

inconsequential toady of Soviet foreign policy and the Marcos

regime.

At this point, the central leadership and entirety of the Party

must renew their resolve to adhere to Marxism-Leninism and to the

antirevisionist line. We are in a period which requires profound

and farsighted conviction in the new democratic revolution as

well as the socialist revolution. This is a period comparable to

that when the classical revisionist parties disintegrated and it

seemed as if socialism had become a futile dream and the world

seemed to be merely a helpless object of imperialist oppression

and exploitation. But that period was exactly the eve of

socialist revolution.

II. The Legacy of Lenin and Stalin

The red flag of the Soviet Union has been brought down. The

czarist flag of Russia now flies over the Kremlin. It may only be

a matter of time that the body of the great Lenin is removed from

its mausoleum in the Red Square, unless Russia's new bourgeoisie

continue to regard it as a lucrative tourist attraction for

visitors with hard foreign currency.

The Soviet modern revisionists, from Khrushchov to Gorbachov, had

invoked the name of Lenin to attack Stalin. But in fact, the

total negation of Stalin was but the spearhead of the total

negation of Lenin and Leninism, socialism, the Soviet Union and

the entire course of Bolshevik and Soviet history. The

bourgeoisie in the former Soviet Union was not satisfied with

anything less than the open restoration of capitalism and the

imposition of the class dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

It is necessary to refresh ourselves on the legacy of Lenin and

Stalin in the face of concerted attempts by the imperialists, the

modern revisionists, the barefaced restorationists of capitalism

and the anticommunist bourgeois intelligentsia to slander and

discredit it. The greatness of Lenin lies in having further

developed the three components of the theory of Marxism:

philosophy, political economy and scientific socialism. Lenin is

the great master of Marxism in the era of modern imperialism and

proletarian revolution.

He delved further into dialectical materialism, pointed to the

unity of opposites as the most fundamental law of material

reality and transformation and contended most extensively and

profoundly with the so-called "third force" subjectivist

philosophy (empirio-criticism). He analyzed modern imperialism

and put forward the theory of uneven development, which

elucidated the possibility of socialist revolution at the weakest

point of the world capitalist system. He elaborated on the

Marxist theory of state and revolution. He stood firmly for

proletarian class struggle and proletarian dictatorship against

the classical revisionists and actually led the first successful

socialist revolution.

The ideas of Lenin were tested in debates within the Second

International and within the Russian Social-Democratic Labor

Party (RSDLP). The proletarian revolutionary line that he and his

Bolshevik comrades espoused proved to be correct and victorious

in contention with various bourgeois ideas and formations that

competed for hegemony in the struggle against czarist autocracy.

We speak of the socialist revolution as beginning on November 7,

1917 because it was on that day that the people under the

leadership of the proletariat through the Bolshevik party seized

political power from the bourgeoisie. It was at that point that

the proletarian dictatorship was established. For this, Lenin is

considered the great founder of Soviet socialism. Proletarian

dictatorship is the first requisite for building socialism.

Without this power, socialist revolution cannot be undertaken. By

this power, Lenin was able to decree the nationalization of the

land and capital assets of the exploiting classes and take over

the commanding heights of the economy.

Proletarian class dictatorship is but another expression for the

state power necessary for smashing and replacing the state power

or class dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, for carrying out the

all-rounded socialist revolution and for preventing the

counterrevolutionaries from regaining control over society.

Proletarian dictatorship is at the same time proletarian

democracy and democracy for the entire people, especially the

toiling masses of workers and peasants. Without the exercise of

proletarian dictatorship against their class enemies, the

proletariat and the people cannot enjoy democracy among

themselves. Proletarian dictatorship is the fruit of the highest

form of democratic action-the revolutionary process that topples

the bourgeois dictatorship. It is the guarantor of democracy

among the people against domestic and external class enemies, the

local exploiting classes and the imperialists.

The Bolsheviks were victorious because they resolutely

established and defended the proletarian class dictatorship. They

had learned their lessons well from the failure of the Paris

Commune of 1871 and from the reformism and treason of the social

democratic parties in the Second International.

Wielding proletarian dictatorship, the Bolsheviks disbanded in

January 1918 the Constituent Assembly that had been elected after

the October Revolution but was dominated by the Socialist

Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks, because that assembly refused

to ratify the Declaration of the Rights of the Toiling and

Exploited People. The Bolsheviks subsequently banned the

bourgeois parties because these parties engaged in

counterrevolutionary violence and civil war against the

proletariat and collaborated with the foreign interventionists.

In his lifetime, Lenin led the Soviet proletariat and people and

the soviets of workers, peasants and soldiers to victory in the

civil war and the war against the interventionist powers from

1918 to 1921. He consolidated the Soviet Union as a federal union

of socialist republics and built the congresses of soviets and

the nationalities. As a proletarian internationalist, he

established the Third International and set forth the

anti-imperialist line for the world proletariat and all oppressed

nations and peoples.

In 1922 he proclaimed the New Economic Policy as a transitory

measure for reviving the economy from the devastation of war in

the quickest possible way and remedying the problem of "war

communism" which had involved requisitioning and rationing under

conditions of war, devastation and scarcity. Under the new

policy, the small entrepreneurs and rich peasants were allowed to

engage freely in private production and to market their products.

The Record of Stalin

Lenin died in 1924. He did not live long enough to see the start

of fullscale socialist economic construction. This was undertaken

by his successor and faithful follower Stalin. He carried it out

in accordance with the teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin:

proletarian dictatorship and mass mobilization, public ownership

of the means of production, economic planning, industrialization,

collectivization and mechanization of agriculture, full

employment and social guarantees, free education at all levels,

expanding social services and the rising standard of living.

But before the socialist economic construction could be started

in 1929 with the first five-year economic plan, Stalin continued

Lenin's New Economic Policy and had to contend with and defeat

the Left Opposition headed by Trotsky who espoused the wrong line

that socialism in one country was impossible and that the workers

in Western Europe (especially in Germany) had to succeed first in

armed uprisings and that rapid industrialization had to be

undertaken immediately at the expense of the peasantry.

Stalin won out with his line of socialism in one country and in

defending the worker-peasant alliance. If Trotsky had his way, he

would have destroyed the chances for Soviet socialism by

provoking the capitalist powers, by breaking up the

worker-peasant alliance and by spreading pessimism in the absence

of any victorious armed uprisings in Western Europe.

When it was time to put socialist economic construction in full

swing, the Right opposition headed by Bukharin emerged to argue

for the continuation of the New Economic Policy and oppose Soviet

industrialization and the collectivization of agriculture. If

Bukharin had had his way, the Soviet Union would not have been

able to build a socialist society with a comprehensive industrial

base and a mechanized and collectivized agriculture and provide

its people with a higher standard of living; and would have

enlarged the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois nationalists in the

various republics and become an easier prey to Nazi Germany whose

leader Hitler made no secret of his plans against the Soviet

Union.

The first five-year economic plan was indeed characterized by

severe difficulties due to the following: the limited industrial

base to start with in a sea of agrarian conditions, the

continuing effects of the war, the economic and political

sanctions of the capitalist powers, the constant threat of

foreign military intervention, the burdensome role of the pioneer

and the violent reaction of the rich peasants who refused to put

their farms, tools and work animals under collectivization,

slaughtered their work animals and organized resistance. But

after the first five-year economic plan, there was popular

jubilation over the establishment of heavy and basic industries.

To the relief of the peasantry there was considerable

mechanization of agriculture, especially in the form of tractor

stations. There was marked improvement in the standard of living.

In 1936, a new constitution was promulgated. As a result of the

successes of the economic construction and in the face of the

actual confiscation of bourgeois and landlord property and the

seeming disappearance of exploiting classes by economic

definition, the constitution declared that there were no more

exploiting classes and no more class struggle except that between

the Soviet people and the external enemy. This declaration would

constitute the biggest error of Stalin. It propelled the

petty-bourgeois mode of thinking in the new intelligentsia and

bureaucracy even as the proletarian dictatorship was exceedingly

alert to the old forces and elements of counterrevolution.

The error had two ramifications.

One ramification abetted the failure to distinguish

contradictions among the people from those between the people and

the enemy and the propensity to apply administrative measures

against those loosely construed as enemies of the people. There

were indeed real British and German spies and bourgeois

nationalists engaged in counterrevolutionary violence. They had

to be ferreted out. But this was done by relying heavily on a

mass reporting system (based on patriotism) that fed information

to the security services. And the principle of due process was

not assiduously and scrupulously followed in order to narrow the

target in the campaign against counterrevolutionaries and punish

only the few who were criminally culpable on the basis of

incontrovertible evidence. Thus, in the 1936-38 period,

arbitrariness victimized a great number of people. Revolutionary

class education through mass movement under Party leadership was

not adequately undertaken for the purpose of ensuring the high

political consciousness and vigilance of the people.

The other ramification was the promotion of the idea that

building socialism was a matter of increasing production,

improving administration and technique, letting the cadres decide

everything (although Stalin never ceased to speak against

bureaucratism) and providing the cadres and experts and the

toiling masses with ever increasing material benefits. The new

intelligentsia produced by the rapidly expanding Soviet

educational system had a decreasing sense of the proletarian

class stand and an increasing sense that it was sufficient to

have the expertise and to become bureaucrats and technocrats in

order to build socialism. The old and the new intelligentsia were

presumed to be proletarian so long as they rendered bureaucratic

and professional service. There was no recognition of the fact

that bourgeois and other antiproletarian ideas can persist and

grow even after the confiscation of bourgeois and landlord

property.

To undertake socialist revolution and construction in a country

with a large population of more than 100 nationalities and a huge

land mass, with a low economic and technological level as a

starting point, ravaged by civil war and ever threatened by local

counterrevolutionary forces and foreign capitalist powers, it was

necessary to have the centralization of political will as well as

centralized planning in the use of limited resources. But such a

necessity can be overdone by a bourgeoisie that is reemergent

through the petty bourgeoisie and can become the basis of

bureaucratism, decreasing democracy in the process of

decision-making. The petty bourgeoisie promotes the bureaucratism

that gives rise to and solidifies the higher levels of the

bureaucrat bourgeoisie and that alienates the Party and the state

from the people. Democratic centralism can be made to degenerate

into bureaucratic centralism by the forces and elements that run

counter to the interests of the proletariat and all working

people.

In world affairs, Stalin encouraged and supported the communist

parties and anti-imperialist movements in capitalist countries

and the colonies and semicolonies through the Third

International. And from 1935 onward, he promoted internationally

the antifascist Popular Front policy. Only after Britain and

France spurned his offer of antifascist alliance and continued to

induce Germany to attack the Soviet Union did Stalin decide to

forge a nonaggression pact with Germany in 1939. This was a

diplomatic maneuver to forestall a probable earlier Nazi

aggression and gain time for the Soviet Union to prepare against

it.

Stalin made full use of the time before the German attack in 1941

to strengthen the Soviet Union economically and militarily as

well as politically through patriotic calls to the entire Soviet

people and through concessions to conservative institutions and

organizations. For instance, the Russian Orthodox Church was

given back its buildings and its privileges. There was marked

relaxation in favor of a broad antifascist popular front.

In the preparations against fascist invasion and in the course of

the Great Patriotic War of 1941-45, the line of Soviet patriotism

further subdued the line of class struggle among the old and new

intelligentsia and the entire people. The Soviet people united.

Even as they suffered a tremendous death casualty of 20 million

and devastation of their country, including the destruction of 85

percent of industrial capacity, they played the pivotal role in

defeating Nazi Germany and world fascism and paved the way for

the rise of several socialist countries in Eastern Europe and

Asia and the national liberation movements on an unprecedented

scale. In the aftermath of World War II, Stalin led the economic

reconstruction of the Soviet Union. Just as he succeeded in

massive industrialization from 1929 to 1941 (only 12 years)

before the war, so he did again from 1945 to 1953 (only eight

years) but this time with apparently no significant resistance

from counterrevolutionaries. In all these years of socialist

construction, socialism proved superior to capitalism in all

respects.

In 1952, Stalin realized that he had made a mistake in

prematurely declaring that there were no more exploiting classes

and no more class struggle in the Soviet Union, except the

struggle between the people and the enemy. But it was too late,

the Soviet party and state were already swamped by a large number

of bureaucrats with waning proletarian revolutionary

consciousness. These bureaucrats and their bureaucratism would

become the base of modern revisionism.

When Stalin died in 1953, he left a Soviet Union that was a

politically, economically, militarily and culturally powerful

socialist country. He had successfully united the Soviet people

of the various republics and nationalities and had defended the

Soviet Union against Nazi Germany. He had rebuilt an industrial

economy, with high annual growth rates, with enough homegrown

food for the people and the world's largest production of oil,

coal, steel, gold, grain, cotton and so on.

Under his leadership, the Soviet Union had created the biggest

number of research scientists, engineers, doctors, artists,

writers and so on. In the literary and artistic field, social

realism flourished while at the same time the entire cultural

heritage of the Soviet Union was cherished.

In foreign policy, Stalin held the U.S. forces of aggression at

bay in Europe and Asia, supported the peoples fighting for

national liberation and socialism, neutralized what was otherwise

the nuclear monopoly of the United States and ceaselessly called

for world peace even as the U.S.-led Western alliance waged the

Cold War and engaged in provocations. It is absolutely necessary

to correctly evaluate Stalin as a leader in order to avoid the

pitfall of modern revisionism and to counter the most strident

anticommunists who attack Marxism-Leninism under the guise of

anti-Stalinism. We must know what are his merits and demerits. We

must respect the historical facts and judge his leadership within

its own time, 1924 to 1953.

It is unscientific to make a complete negation of Stalin as a

leader in his own time and to heap the blame on him even for the

modern revisionist line, policies and actions which have been

adopted and undertaken explicitly against the name of Stalin and

have - at first gradually and then rapidly - brought about the

collapse of the Soviet Union and the restoration of capitalism.

Leaders must be judged mainly for the period of their

responsibility even as we seek to trace the continuities and

discontinuities from one period to another.

Stalin's merits within his own period of leadership are principal

and his demerits are secondary. He stood on the correct side and

won all the great struggles to defend socialism such as those

against the Left opposition headed by Trotsky; the Right

opposition headed by Bukharin, the rebellious rich peasants, the

bourgeois nationalists, and the forces of fascism headed by

Hitler. He was able to unite, consolidate and develop the Soviet

state. After World War II, Soviet power was next only to the

United States. Stalin was able to hold his ground against the

threats of U.S. imperialism. As a leader, he represented and

guided the Soviet proletariat and people from one great victory

to another.

III. The Process of Capitalist Restoration

The regimes of Khrushchov, Brezhnev and Gorbachov mark the three

stages in the process of capitalist restoration in the Soviet

Union, a process of undermining and destroying the great

accomplishments of the Soviet proletariat and people under the

leadership of Lenin and Stalin. This process has also encompassed

Eastern Europe.

The Khrushchov regime laid the foundation of Soviet modern

revisionism and overthrew the proletarian dictatorship. The

Brezhnev regime fully developed modern revisionism for a far

longer period of time and completely converted socialism into

monopoly bureaucrat capitalism. And the Gorbachov regime brought

the work of modern revisionism to the final goal of wiping out

the vestiges of socialism and entirely dismantling the socialist

facade of the revisionist regimes in Eastern Europe and the

Soviet Union. He destroyed the Soviet Union that Lenin and Stalin

had built and defended.

To restore capitalism, the Soviet revisionist regimes had to

revise the basic principles of socialist revolution and

construction and to go through stages of camouflaged

counterrevolution in a period of 38 years, 1953 to 1991. It is a

measure of the greatness of Lenin and Stalin that their

accomplishments in 36 years of socialist revolution and

construction took another long period of close to four decades to

dismantle. Stalin spent a total of 20 years in socialist

construction. The revisionist renegades took a much longer period

of time to restore capitalism in the Soviet Union.

In the same period of time, the revisionist regimes cleverly took

the pretext of attacking Stalin in order to attack the

foundations of Marxist-Leninist theory and practice and

eventually condemn Lenin himself and the entire course of Soviet

history and finally destroy the Soviet Union. The revisionist

renegades in their protracted "de-Stalinization" campaign blamed

Stalin beyond his lifetime for their own culpabilities and

failures. For instance, they aggravated bureaucratism in the

service of capitalist restoration but they still blamed the

long-dead Stalin for it.

Tito of Yugoslavia had the unique distinction of being the

pioneer in modern revisionism. In opposing Stalin, he deviated

from the basic principles of socialist revolution and

construction in 1947 and received political and material support

from the West. He refused to undertake land reform and

collectivization. He preserved and promoted the bourgeoisie

through the bureaucracy and private enterprise, especially in the

form of private cooperatives.

He considered as key to socialism not the public ownership of the

means of production, economic planning and further development of

the productive forces but the immediate decentralization of

enterprises; the so-called workers' self-management that actually

combined bureaucratism and anarchy of production; and the

operation of the free market (including the goods imported from

Western countries) upon the existent and stagnant level of

production. In misrepresenting Lenin's New Economic Policy as the

very model for socialist economic development, he was the first

chief of state to use the name of Lenin against both Lenin and

Stalin.

First Stage: The Khrushchov Regime, 1953-64

To Khrushchov belongs the distinction of being the pioneer in

modern revisionism in the Soviet Union, the first socialist

country in the history of mankind, and of being the most

influential in promoting modern revisionism on a world scale.

Khrushchov's career as a revisionist in power started in 1953. He

was a bureaucratic sycophant and an active player in repressive

actions during the time of Stalin. To become the first secretary

of the CPSU and accumulate power in his hands, he played off the

followers of Stalin against each other and succeeded in having

Beria executed after a summary trial. He depended on the new

bourgeoisie that had arisen from the bureaucracy and the new

intelligentsia.

In 1954, he had already reorganized the CPSU to serve his

ideological and political position. In 1955, he upheld Tito

against the memory of Stalin, especially on the issue of

revisionism. In 1956, he delivered before the 20th Party Congress

his "secret" speech against Stalin, completely negating him as no

better than a bloodthirsty monster and denouncing the

"personality cult". The congress marked the overthrow of the

proletarian dictatorship. In 1957, he used the armed forces to

defeat the vote for his ouster by the Politburo and thereby made

the coup to further consolidate his position.

In 1956, the anti-Stalin diatribe inspired the anticommunist

forces in Poland and Hungary to carry out uprisings. The

Hungarian uprising was stronger and more violent. Khrushchov

ordered the Soviet army to suppress it, chiefly because the

Hungarian party leadership sought to rescind its political and

military ties with the Soviet Union.

But subsequently, all throughout Eastern Europe under Soviet

influence, it became clear that it was alright to the Soviet

ruling clique for the satellite regimes to adopt

capitalist-oriented reforms (private enterprise in agriculture,

handicraft and services, dissolution of collective farms even

where land reform had been carried out on a narrow scale and, of

course, the free market) like Yugoslavia along an anti-Stalin

line. The revisionist regimes were, however, under strict orders

to remain within the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA)

and the Warsaw Pact.

The unremoulded social-democratic and petty-bourgeois sections of

the revisionist ruling parties in Eastern Europe started to kick

out genuine communists from positions of leadership in the state

and party under the direction of Khrushchov and under the

pressure of anticommunist forces in society. It must be recalled

that the so- called proletarian ruling parties were actually

mergers of communists and social-democrats put into power by the

Soviet Red Army. At the most, there were only a few years of

proletarian dictatorship and socialist economic construction

before Khrushchov started in 1956 to enforce his revisionist line

in the satellite parties and regimes.

The total negation of Stalin by Khrushchov was presented as a

rectification of the personality cult, bureaucratism and

terrorism; and as the prerequisite for the efflorescence of

democracy and civility, rapid economic progress that builds the

material and technological foundation of communism in twenty

years, the peaceful form of social revolution from an

exploitative system to a nonexploitative one, detente with the

United States, nuclear disarmament step by step and world peace,

a world without wars and arms.

Khrushchov paid lip service to proletarian dictatorship and the

basic principles of socialist revolution and construction but at

the same time introduced a set of ideas to undermine them. He

used bourgeois populism, declaring that the CPSU was a party of

the whole people and the Soviet state was a state of the whole

people on the anti-Marxist premise that the tasks of proletarian

dictatorship had been fulfilled. He used bourgeois pacifism,

declaring that it was possible and preferable for mankind to opt

for peaceful transition to socialism and peaceful economic

competition with the capitalist powers in order to avert the

nuclear annihilation of humanity; raising peaceful coexistence

from the level of diplomatic policy to that of the general line

governing all kinds of external relations of the Soviet Union and

the CPSU; and denying the violent nature of imperialism.

In the economic field, he used the name of Lenin against Lenin

and Stalin by misrepresenting Lenin's New Economic Policy as the

way to socialism rather than as a transitory measure towards

socialist construction. He carried out decentralization to some

degree, he autonomized state enterprises and promoted private

agriculture and the free market. The autonomized state

enterprises became responsible for their own cost and profit

accounting and for raising the wages and bonuses on the basis of

the profits of the individual enterprise. The private plots were

enlarged and large areas of land (ranging from 50 to 100

hectares) were leased to groups, usually households. Many tractor

stations for collective farms were dissolved and agricultural

machines were turned over to private entrepreneurs. The free

market in agricultural and industrial products and services was

promoted.

In the same way that the revisionist rhetoric of Khrushchov

overlapped with Marxist-Leninist terminology, socialism

overlapped with capitalist restoration. The socialist system of

production and distribution was still dominant for a while. Thus,

the Soviet economy under Khrushchov still registered high rates

of growth. But the regime took most pride in the higher rate of

growth in the private sector which benefited from cheap energy,

transport, tools and other supplies from the public sector and

which was credited with producing the goods stolen from the

public sector.

In the autonomization of state enterprises, managers acquired the

power to hire and fire workers, transact business within the

Soviet Union and abroad; increase their own salaries, bonuses and

other perks at the expense of the workers; lessen the funds

available for the development of other parts of the economy; and

engage in bureaucratic corruption in dealing with the free

market.

With regard to private agriculture, propaganda was loudest on the

claim that it was more productive than the state and collective

farms. The reemergent rich peasants were lauded. But in fact, the

corrupt bureaucrats and private farmers and merchants were

colluding in underpricing and stealing products (through

pilferage and wholesale misdeclaration of goods as defective)

from the collective and state farms in order to rechannel these

to the free market. In the end, the Soviet Union would suffer

sharp reductions in agricultural production and would be

importing huge amounts of grain.

The educational system continued to expand, reproducing in great

numbers the new intelligentsia now influenced by the ideas of

modern revisionism and looking to the West for models of

efficient management and for quality consumer goods. In the arts

and in literature, social realism was derided and universal

humanism, pacifism and mysticism came into fashion.

The Khrushchov regime drew prestige from the advances of Soviet

science and technology, from the achievements in space technology

and from the continuing economic construction. All of these were

not possible without the prior work and the accumulated social

capital under the leadership of Stalin. Khrushchov went into

rapid housing and office construction which pleased the

bureaucracy.

The CPSU and the Chinese Communist Party were the main

protagonists in the great ideological debate. Despite

Khrushchov's brief reconciliation with Tito, the Moscow

Declaration of 1957 and the Moscow Statement of 1960 maintained

that modern revisionism was the main danger to the international

communist movement as a result of the firm and vigorous stand of

the Chinese and other communist parties.

Khrushchov extended the ideological debate into a disruption of

state-to-state relations between the Soviet Union and China. In

the Cuban missile crisis, he had a high profile confrontation

with Kennedy. He first took an adventurist and then swung to a

capitulationist position. With regard to Vietnam, he was opposed

to the revolutionary armed struggle of the Vietnamese people and

grudgingly gave limited support to them.

The deterioration of Soviet industry and the breakdown of

agriculture and bungling in foreign relations led to the removal

of Khrushchov in a coup by the Brezhnev clique. Brezhnev became

the general secretary of the CPSU and Kosygin became the premier.

The former would eventually assume the position of president.

Second Stage: The Brezhnev Regime, 1964-82

While Khrushchov was stridently anti-Stalin, Brezhnev made a

limited and partial "rehabilitation" of Stalin. If we link this

to the recentralization of the bureaucracy and the state

enterprises previously decentralized and the repressive measures

taken against the pro-imperialist and anticommunist opposition

previously encouraged by Khrushchov, it would appear that

Brezhnev was reviving Stalin's policies.

In fact, the Brezhnev regime was on the whole anti-Stalin, with

respect to the continuing line of promoting the Khrushchovite

capitalist-oriented reforms in the economy and the line of

developing an offensive capability "to defend the Soviet Union

outside of its borders". It is therefore false to say that the

18-year Brezhnev regime was an interruption of the anti-Stalin

line started by Khrushchov.

There is, however, an ideological error that puts both Khrushchov

and Brezhnev on board with Stalin. This is the premature

declaration of the end of the exploiting classes and class

struggle, except that between the enemy and the people. This line

served to obfuscate and deny the existence of an already

considerable and growing bourgeoisie in Soviet society and to

justify repressive measures against those considered as enemy of

the Soviet people for being opposed to the ruling clique.

Under the Brezhnev leadership, the Khrushchovite

capitalist-oriented reforms were pushed hard by the

Brezhnev-Kosygin tandem. Socialism was converted fully into state

monopoly capitalism, with the prevalent corrupt bureaucrats not

only increasing their official incomes and perks but taking their

loot by colluding with private entrepreneurs and even criminal

syndicates in milking the state enterprises. On an ever widening

scale, tradeable goods produced by the state enterprises were

either underpriced, pilfered or declared defective only to be

channeled to the private entrepreneurs for the free market.

Sales and purchase contracts with capitalist firms abroad became

a big source of kickbacks for state officials who deposited these

in secret bank accounts abroad. There was also a thriving

blackmarket in foreign exchange and goods smuggled from the West

through Eastern Europe, the Baltic and southern republics.

The corruption of the bureaucrat and private capitalists

discredited the revisionist ruling party and regime at various

levels. At the end of the Brezhnev regime, there was already an

estimated 30 million people engaged in private enterprise. Among

them were members of the families of state and party officials.

Members of the Brezhnev family themselves were closely

collaborating with private firms and criminal syndicates in

scandalous shady deals.

The state enterprises necessary for assuring funds for the ever

expanding central Soviet bureaucracy and for the arms race were

recentralized. A military-industrial complex grew rapidly and ate

up yearly far more than the conservatively estimated 20 percent

of the Soviet budget. The Brezhnev regime was obsessed with

attaining military parity with its superpower rival, the United

States.

The huge Soviet state that could have generated the surplus

income for reinvestment in more efficient and expanded civil

production of basic and nonbasic consumer goods, wasted the funds

on the importation of the high grade consumer goods for the upper

five per cent of the population (the new bourgeoisie), on

increasing amounts of imported grain, on the military-industrial

complex and the arms race, on the maintenance and equipment of

half a million troops in Eastern Europe and on other foreign

commitments in the third world. Among the commitments that arose

due to superpower rivalry was the assistance to the Vietnamese

people in the Vietnam war, Cuba, Angola and Nicaragua. Among the

commitments that arose due to the sheer adventurism of Soviet

social-imperialism was the dispatch of a huge number of Soviet

troops and equipment to Afghanistan at the time that the Soviet

Union was already clearly in dire economic and financial straits.

The hard currency for the importation of grain and high-grade

consumer goods came from the sale of some 10 percent of Soviet

oil production to Western countries and the income from military

sales to the oil-producing countries in the Middle East.

The Brezhnev regime used "Marxist-Leninist" phrasemongering to

disguise and legitimize the growth of capitalism within the

Soviet Union. Repressive measures were used against opponents of

the regime, including the pretext of psychiatric confinement.

These measures served the growth of bureaucrat monopoly

capitalism and constituted social fascism. The Brezhnev regime

introduced to the world a perverse reinterpretation of

proletarian dictatorship and proletarian internationalism, with

the proclamation of the Brezhnev doctrine of "limited

sovereignty" and Soviet-centered "international proletarian

dictatorship" on the occasion of the Soviet invasion of

Czechoslovakia in 1968. It was also on this occasion that the

Soviet Union came to be called social-imperialist, socialism in

words and imperialism in deed. With the same arrogance, Brezhnev

deployed hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops along the

Sino-Soviet border.

The Soviet Union under Brezhnev tried to keep a tight rein on its

satellites in Eastern Europe within the Warsaw Pact. Thus, it had

to expend a lot of resources of its own and those of its

satellites in maintaining and equipping half a million Soviet

troops in Eastern Europe. Clearly, the revisionist ruling parties

and regimes were not developing the lively participation and

loyalty of the proletariat and people through socialist progress

but were keeping them in bondage through bureaucratic and

military means in the name of socialism.

The Soviet Union under Brezhnev promoted the principle of

"international division of labor" within the CMEA. This meant the

enforcement of neocolonial specialization in certain lines of

production by particular member-countries other than the Soviet

Union. The relationship between the Soviet Union and the other

CMEA member-countries was no different from that between

imperialism and the semicolonies. This stunted the comprehensive

development of national economies of most of the member countries

although some basic industries had been built and continued to be

built.

Eventually, the Soviet Union started to feel aggrieved that it

had to deliver oil at prices lower than those of the world market

and receive off-quality goods in exchange. So, it continuously

made upward adjustments on the price of oil supplies to the CMEA

client states. At the same time, among the East European

countries, there had been the long-running resentment over the

shoddy equipment and other goods that they were actually getting

from the Soviet Union at a real overprice.

Before the 1970s, the Soviet Union encouraged capitalist-oriented

reforms in its East European satellites but definitely

discouraged any attempt by these satellites to leave the Warsaw

Pact. In the early 1970s, the Soviet Union itself wanted to have

a detente with the United States, clinch the "most favored

nation" (MFN) treatment, gain access to new technology and

foreign loans from the United States and the other capitalist

countries. However, in 1972, the Brezhnev regime was rebuffed by

the Jackson-Vannik amendment, which withheld MFN status from the

Soviet Union for preventing Jewish emigration. The regime then

further encouraged its East European satellites to enter into

economic, financial and trade agreements with the capitalist

countries.

During most of the 1970s, these revisionist-ruled countries got

hooked to Western investments, loans and consumer goods. In the

early 1980s, most of them fell into serious economic troubles as

a result of the aggravation of domestic economic problems and the

difficulties in handling their debt burden, which per capita in

most cases was even worse than that of the Philippines. Being

responsible for the economic policies and for their bureaucratic

corruption, the revisionist ruling parties and regimes became

discredited in the eyes of the broad masses of the people and the

increasingly anti-Soviet and anticommunist intelligentsia. The

pro-Soviet ruling parties in Eastern Europe had always been

vulnerable to charges of political puppetry, especially from the

direction of the anticommunist advocates of nationalism and

religion. In the 1970s and 1980s these parties conspicuously

degenerated from the inside in an all-round way through

bourgeoisification and became increasingly the object of public

contempt.

The United States kept on dangling the prospect of MFN status and

other economic concessions to the Soviet Union. Each time the

United States did so, it was able to get something from the

Soviet Union, like its commitment to the Helsinki Accord

(intended to provide legal protection to dissenters in the Soviet

Union) and a draft strategic arms limitation treaty but it never

gave the concessions that the Soviet Union wanted. The United

States simply wanted the Cold War to go on in order to induce or

compel the Soviet Union to waste its resources on the arms race.

The only significant concession that the Soviet Union continued

to get was the purchase of grain and the commercial credit

related to it.

When the CPP leadership decided to explore and seek relations

with the Soviet and East European ruling parties in the middle of

the 1980s, there was the erroneous presumption that the

successors of Brezhnev would follow an anti-imperialist line in

the Cold War of the two superpowers. Thus, the policy paper on

the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe praised the Brezhnev line in

hyperbolic terms.

Although the Gorbachov regime would pursue worse revisionist

policies than those of its predecessor, it would become a good

source of information regarding the principal and essential

character of the Brezhnev regime on a comprehensive range of

issues. By using this information from a critical

Marxist-Leninist point of view, we can easily sum up the Brezhnev

regime and at the same time know the antisocialist and

anticommunist direction of the Gorbachov regime in 1985-88.

The Third and Final Stage: The Gorbachov Regime, 1985-91

The Gorbachov regime from 1985 to 1991 marked the third and final

stage in the anti-Marxist and antisocialist revisionist

counterrevolution to restore capitalism and bourgeois

dictatorship.

It involved the prior dissolution of the ruling revisionist

parties and regimes in Eastern Europe, the absorption of East

Germany by West Germany and finally the banning and dispossession

of the CPSU and the disintegration of the Soviet Union no less,

after a dubious coup attempt by Gorbachov's appointees in the

highest state and party positions next only to his.

The counterrevolution was carried out in a relatively peaceful

manner. After all, the degeneration from socialism to capitalism

proceeded for 38 years. Within the last six years, the corrupt

bureaucrats masquerading as communists were ready to peel off

their masks, declare themselves as excommunists and even

anticommunists overnight and cooperate with the longstanding

anticommunists among the intelligentsia and the aggrieved broad

masses of the people in setting up regimes that were openly

bourgeois and antisocialist.

Because they were manipulated and directed by the big bourgeoisie

and the anticommunist intelligentsia, the mass uprisings in

Eastern Europe in 1989 cannot be simply and totally described as

democratic although it is also undeniable that the broad masses

of the people, including the working class and the

intelligentsia, were truly aggrieved and did rise up. The far

bigger mass actions that put Mussolini and Hitler into power or

the lynch mobs unleashed by the Indonesian fascists to massacre

the communists in 1965 do not make a fascist movement democratic.

In determining the character of a mass movement, we take into

account not only the magnitude of mass participation but also the

kind of class leadership involved. Otherwise, the periodic

electoral rallies of the bourgeois reactionary parties which

exclude the workers and peasants from power or even the Edsa mass

uprising cum military mutiny in 1986 would be considered totally

democratic, without the necessary qualifications regarding the

class leadership involved.

It is possible for nonviolent mass uprisings to arise and succeed

when their objective is not to really effect a fundamental change

of the exploitative social system, when one set of bureaucrats is

simply replaced by another set and when the incumbent set of

bureaucrats does not mind the change of administration. It was

only in Romania where there was bloodshed because it was not

completely within the reorganizing that had been done by the

Gorbachovites in 1987 to 1989 in Eastern Europe. Ceaucescu

resisted change as did Honecker to a lesser extent. In the

dissolution of the CPSU and the Soviet Union, the anticommunist

combination of Gorbachov and Yeltsin simply issued the decrees

and did not even bother to conjure any semblance of popular

demand in the form of huge mass uprisings. As the last

revisionist ruler of the Soviet Union, Gorbachov could accelerate

the destruction of the CPSU and the Soviet Union because of the

previous work of Khrushchov and Brezhnev. What he did in the main

in his brief regime was to engage in a systematic campaign of

deception. He described his regime as being engaged in socialist

renewal and at the same time encouraged the forces of capitalist

restoration to do their work under the slogans of democracy and

economic reform.

From time to time, he paid lip service to Marxism-Leninism and

socialism and made frequent protestations that he was a convinced

communist. But in the end he came out openly as an anticommunist.

In his final message as President of the Soviet Union on December

25, 1991, he used the language of the imperialists in the Cold

War to describe his principal achievement, which is "giving

freedom" to the people from "totalitarianism" and "civilizing"

what he implied as the "uncivilized" Soviet state and people.

In laying the ideological premises of his regime, Gorbachov went

back to the strident anti-Stalinism of Khrushchov and described

the Brezhnev period as an interruption of the work initiated by

Khrushchov. He rehabilitated Bukharin and put him up as a source

of wisdom for "economic reforms".

It became the fashion for Gorbachov and his colleagues at various

levels of the CPSU and the state to describe themselves as

"liberal communists" and to attack - under the guise of being

completely anti-Stalin and depicting Stalin as being worse than

Hitler - the entire course of Soviet history. They put forward

propositions in abstract supraclass, universalistic, humanistic

and ahistorical terms and drew from social democracy and

bourgeois liberalism in order to denigrate, deviate from and

attack Marxist-Leninist theory and the proletarian revolutionary

standpoint.

Gorbachov and his colleagues systematically adopted barefaced

anticommunist "advisers" and placed the anticommunists in the

various branches of government, the Congress of People's

Deputies, the institutes and mass media in order to churn out a

constant stream of anticommunist propaganda. Gorbachov himself

took the lead in ridiculing the proletarian revolutionary stand

as outdated and Marxism-Leninism as having no monopoly of the

truth and won the adulation of the officials, ideologues and

publicists of the United States and other capitalist countries as

he used the language of social democracy and bourgeois liberalism

and ultimately U.S. Cold War terminology.

"Glasnost"

The main and essential feature of "glasnost" (openness) was the

crescendo of anticommunist propaganda. The field of propaganda

was monopolized by anticommunism. This was expressed in a variety

of ways, modern revisionist, social-democratic,

bourgeois-liberal, populist, nationalist, fascist, religious,

racist and purely cynical terms. The pluralism of anticommunist

ideas, including the most antidemocratic ones, was described as

democracy. But the key idea in the welter of anticommunist

propaganda was the advocacy of capitalism and bourgeois

liberalism. Gorbachov attacked Stalin to be able by implication

to attack Lenin, Marxist-Leninist theory and the entire course of

Soviet history. But his subalterns explicitly attacked all these

in the entire course of the Gorbachov period.

After eliminating the Brezhnevite holdovers in the Politburo in

the most undemocratic manner, replacing them when they were on

foreign trips or knocking them down at lower levels of the Party

and state bureaucracy, Gorbachov played the middle between the

"conservative" Ligachev who accepted "perestroika" but not

"glasnost" and the "radical progressive" Yeltsin who went gung ho

for both "glasnost" and "perestroika". Then, he used Ligachev in

1987 to push out Yeltsin from the Politburo only to let the

latter continue as his cooperator in attacking the CPSU from the

outside.

In the years leading up to 1989, the anticommunist followers of

Gorbachov invented all kinds of lies against the socialist course

of Soviet history and its great proletarian leaders and clamored

for the rehabilitation of counterrevolutionaries and the freedom

of all kinds of monsters. The people were fed with all kinds of

illusions about a better life under capitalism. In 1989, he had a

new Soviet Congress of People's Deputies dominated by an

anticommunist intelligentsia most of whom were at first formally

communists but would eventually declare themselves as

excommunists and even anticommunists. The congress included from

the very start prominent anticommunists of longstanding.

In early 1990, Gorbachov used the congress to disempower the CPSU

and to give him autocratic presidential powers. In the autumn of

1990 he took the posture of siding with the "conservatives" in

the CPSU and the state against the "radical progressives"

Yakovlev and Schevernadze. But at the same time he agreed to

putting the sovereignty of the Soviet Union under question

through a referendum in early 1991.

The popular voting in the referendum was for the retention of the

Soviet Union. But again he agreed with the nationalist forces in

the various republics to make a new "union treaty" whose terms

(like having separate armies and currencies, etc.) meant the

break up of the Soviet Union. In this period before the alleged

coup to save the Soviet Union, Gorbachov announced that it was

wrong to stress the role of the proletariat and that he was going

to dissolve the CPSU and establish a social-democratic party.

Although the alleged coup of Gorbachov appointees from August 19

to 22, 1991 involved only a few plotters by its very nature,

Gorbachov and Yeltsin collaborated in using it as a pretext for

dissolving the entire CPSU and the Soviet Congress of People's

Deputies. Although the Soviet Constitution and the Soviet Union

were still existing and Gorbachov himself had a presidential term

extending to 1995, he decreed the dissolution of the Soviet Union

and resigned in favor of a commonwealth of independent states

(CIS) still on the planning board. Thus, mouthing the slogan of

democracy, the anticommunist duo of Gorbachov and Yeltsin

autocratically issued decrees, committed the most antidemocratic

acts and carried out their own coup against the Soviet state.

In the first place and in the final analysis, "glasnost" was

devised by the monopoly bureaucrat bourgeoisie to pave the way

for openly installing the bourgeois class dictatorship. The din

of the petty-bourgeoisie about "democracy" is waning after all

the drumbeating for the restoration of capitalism and the

bourgeois class dictatorship. The monopoly bureaucrat bourgeoisie

remains in control of the levers of political power and the

economy while the petty bourgeoisie is being relegated to a worse

life of massive unemployment, frustration and misery.

"Perestroika"

Perestroika in reality meant capitalist restructuring and the

disorganization and breakdown of production, despite the avowals

of renewing socialism and raising production through better

management, a campaign against alcoholism and absenteeism, higher

wages and availability of domestic and imported consumer goods,

higher profits for the private entrepreneurs, the expansion and

retooling of the means of production and the conversion of

military enterprises to civilian uses.

The main line of perestroika is the privatization and

marketization of the economy by domestic and foreign investors.

One plan after another (the 500-day Shatalin Plan, the Grand

Bargain, etc.) was considered and made dependent on foreign

direct investments and loans as domestic savings disappeared and

the real income of the people was cut down by inflation due to

the wanton printing of money by Moscow and the price gouging in

the free market. The free marketeers bought cheap or stole from

the state enterprises and emptied the state stores. Thus, the

people were compelled to buy from the free market.

The most favored among the private businesses were the joint

ventures (joint stock companies) with foreign investors and the

private cooperatives. Going into joint ventures with foreign

investors mainly in the importation of consumer goods and in the

repackaging or assembly of these, the high bureaucrats of the

ruling party and the state and their family members appropriated

for themselves state assets and drew from foreign loans in what

may be considered as one of the biggest insider operation and

management theft in the entire history of capitalism. These joint

ventures were no different from the big comprador operations of

high bureaucrats in the Philippines and many other countries in

the third world. However, the most widespread form of business

was the private cooperatives of varying scales in industry,

agriculture and services. Their operations included the

rechanneling of goods and services from the state to the private

sector, small and medium private manufacturing and the private

export of whatever Soviet goods, including oil and weapons, and

the importation of high-grade consumer goods like cars,

computers, videorecorders, etc. At least 50 million people out of

a population of 290 million were registered as members of small,

medium and big private cooperatives. Many people joined these

private cooperatives if only to gain access to basic commodities

which disappeared from the much cheaper state stores.

The capitalist restructuring or economic reforms did not

stimulate production and improve the quality of goods but

aggravated the breakdown of production and brought about scarcity

of the most essential goods. Yet, it was the long-dead Stalin who

got blamed by revisionist and imperialist propaganda for the

economic chaos brought about by perestroika. The corrupt

bureaucrats who continued to call themselves communists connived

with private businessmen more scandalously than ever before in

plundering the economy.

From 1988 to 1990, Gorbachov increased the money supply by more

than 50 percent even as from year to year production had fallen

by 10 to 20 percent or worse and in 1991 alone he increased the

money supply by more than 100 percent amidst a production fall of

more than 20 percent. The Gorbachov regime had to keep on

printing money to maintain the central bureaucracy and the

military in view of inflation, corruption, the nationalist

refusal of the republics to send up taxes and foreign exchange to

the center, the ethnic conflicts and the justifiable workers'

strikes.

At the beginning of the Gorbachov regime, the Soviet foreign debt

was only US$ 30 billion. The previous regimes had not been able

to borrow more because of the U.S.-Soviet rivalry in the Cold

War. But in the period of only six years, the Gorbachov regime

was able to raise the foreign debt level to US billion

(according to the Soviet Central Bank report to the International

Monetary Fund) or to US$ 100 billion (according to the Soviet

Central Bank report to the Group of Seven). In the final year of

1991, the Soviet Union borrowed US billion. In view of the

production breakdown, the foreign funds were used mainly to

finance the importation of consumer goods and the sheer

bureaucratic thievery under the cover of the joint ventures. The

Soviet Union practically became a neocolony of Germany which had

become its main creditor and supplier. Germany accounted for the

biggest bulk of foreign supplies and investments (at least 30

percent as of 1991) in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The

ghost of Hitler can never be more happy with the success of the

German big bourgeoisie. There was a chain reaction of closures of

state enterprises due to the lack of fuel, spare parts and raw

materials; the diversion of funds to import foreign products; the

lack of purchase orders; and the private appropriation of state

assets and funds through real or fake joint ventures. Agriculture

also suffered from the lack of inputs and transport. Conversion

of military to civilian enterprises was negligible. The

military-industrial complex continued to suck up large amounts of

resources. As in Eastern Europe, the economy fell apart in the

Soviet Union, with each part throwing away past advantages of

cooperation and trying to strike disadvantageous deals with the

bourgeoisie abroad.

Massive unemployment surfaced. Hyperinflation started to run at

more than 200 percent before the break up of the Soviet Union and

was expected to run faster after the decontrol of prices

scheduled by Yeltsin for January 2, 1992. Even then more than 100

million Soviet people were living below the poverty line. Most

victimized were the pensioners, children, the youth, the women,

the unemployed and the low-income people. The shortage or absence

of basic necessities was widespread. As in 1990, the leaders of

capitalist restoration shamelessly begged for food aid from

abroad in 1991. On each occasion, the handling of food aid was

attended by corruption as the food was diverted to the free

market.

"New Thinking"

The key element in Gorbachov's "new thinking" in international

relations was "de-ideologization", which actually meant doing

away completely with the proletarian class stand and proletarian

internationalism and capitulating to imperialism under the guise

of cooperation. Gorbachov asserted that imperialism's violent

nature had changed to peaceful and that humanity has integral

interests and a supraclass concern about weapons of mass

destruction, ecology and other issues. Gorbachov's

"de-ideologization" actually meant the total rejection of the

proletarian class stand and the adoption of the bourgeois class

stand. All Marxists recognize the common interests of mankind and

the march of human civilization; and at the same time the fact

that the world and particular societies are dominated by

imperialist and local reactionary classes and that the historic

class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is

still going on. What Gorbachov did was to use abstract,

universalistic and supraclass terms in order to obscure that

historic class struggle and find common cause with imperialism.

He considered "legitimate national interests" of states as the

most important building material in international relations.

After the 70th anniversary of the Great October Socialist

Revolution, he scaled down the international activities of the

Soviet Union related to cooperating with third world countries

and anti-imperialist organizations and movements. Prominent

advisers of his also proposed that the international people's

organizations financed by Soviet organizations could unite with

their counterparts financed by the forces of capitalism to form

bigger "nonideological" organizations. What they meant of course

was outright capitulation to imperialist ideology.

Gorbachov touted the principle of peaceful coexistence among

states, irrespective of ideology and social system. He repudiated

the Brezhnev Doctrine and stressed that other countries as well

as communist parties could decide for themselves. But he was

being hypocritical because Gorbachovite agents busied themselves

in reorganizing and then scuttling the ruling parties and regimes

in Eastern Europe.

He called for an end to the Cold War, for accelerated nuclear

disarmament and reduction of conventional forces and for the

dissolution of the NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Arms reduction

treaties were forged faster than at any previous period in the

Cold War. The Gorbachov regime undertook all these in the vain

hope of attracting foreign investments and new technology to

shore up the Soviet economy. But the Group of Seven took the firm

position that they would not throw good money after bad and shore

up an increasingly decrepit and corrupt bureaucratic economy.

Under the Gorbachov leadership, the Soviet Union collaborated

with the United States and other countries in the settlement of

so-called regional armed conflicts such as those centered in Iran

and Iraq, Afghanistan, Angola and Nicaragua. The Soviet Union

committed itself to unilateral withdrawal of military forces in

Eastern Europe and to German reunification in exchange for

economic assistance from the West in the form of direct

investments, loans, technology transfer and trade accommodations.

Among the capitalist powers, Germany gave the most assistance in

the form of loans, consumer supplies and housing aid for Soviet

troops returning from Eastern Europe. But even the funds advanced

for housing these troops became the object of Soviet

mismanagement and theft.

As early as 1987, the revisionist ruling parties and regimes in

Eastern Europe were already being pushed to reorganize themselves

and to put Gorbachovites on top of the Brezhnevites. The word

also went around within and outside the ruling parties and

regimes that the Soviet Union was decided on withdrawing its

forces from Eastern Europe and not interfere in what would happen

in the region. Thus, the anticommunist forces had advance notice

of what they could do under the new circumstances. They could

play on the real grievances of the people and bring down the

already much-discredited ruling parties and regimes.

The socioeconomic and political crisis of the various revisionist

regimes and the wide open knowledge that the Soviet Union was no

longer interested in the preservation of the Warsaw Pact and the

rouble-controlled CMEA were sufficient ground for the

anticommunist forces to activate themselves and grow. The

increasingly clear message from 1987 to 1989 that the Soviet

Union would not intervene in any popular action against the local

regimes gave the anticommunist forces the confidence to aim for

their toppling. Most important of all, the overwhelming majority

of the revisionist bureaucrats in the ruling party and the state

(with the exception of a few like Ceaucescu who was relatively

independent of the CPSU and Honecker and Zhikhov who were

longtime Brezhnevites) were just too willing to drop off their

communist masks, retain their privileges, exploit the new

opportunities and avoid the wrath of an already aggrieved people.

In the critical references of this discussion to the

responsibilities of the Gorbachov regime and the East European

satellite regimes in the collapse of the latter, there should be

no misunderstanding that we wish a certain policy or a certain

flow of events to have gone another way. We are merely describing

at this point the final stage of the unmasking and

self-destruction of the revisionist parties and regimes.

Next only to the destruction of the CPSU and the Soviet Union,

the biggest service done by the Gorbachov regime to the

capitalist powers was the rapid delivery of Eastern Europe to

them and the destruction of the Warsaw Pact and the CMEA.

Within the final year of its existence, the Soviet Union under

Gorbachov supported the United States in carrying out a war of

aggression in the Gulf region and in asserting itself as the

unrivaled policeman of the world.

Gorbachov fully revealed himself in 1991. The destructive

consequences to the Soviet Union of his kind of leadership became

very clear. It is untenable for any revolutionary to make an

apologia for him and to try to make him out as a hero. Those who

had been deceived into believing that Gorbachov was engaged in

socialist renewal should take a long hard look at the

incontrovertible fact that he completed the process of capitalist

restoration started by Khrushchov and presided over the

destruction of the Soviet Union.

The officials, ideologues and propagandists of imperialism and

reaction continue to hail Gorbachov as one of the greatest men of

the 20th century for bringing about "democracy" in the Soviet

Union and Eastern Europe. Indeed they have cause to rejoice. He

has brought about the flagrant restoration of capitalism and

bourgeois dictatorship. The peoples of the former Soviet Union

and Eastern Europe are now thrown open to further capitalist

exploitation and oppression, suffer the pangs of hunger and

greater loss of freedom and face increased political turmoil,

widening civil war and military fascism.

The Commonwealth of Independent States

The commonwealth of independent states (CIS) that has replaced

the Soviet Union is dominated by Russia, which is flaunting the

old czarist flag of Great-Russian chauvinism, and is afflicted

with serious contradictions between Russia and the other

republics, among republics with common borders, between Russian

enclaves and local nationalities in non-Russian republics and

among different nationalities within each of the republics. The

contradictions involve political, economic, financial, security,

ethnic and border issues. There is political chaos all over the

so-called commonwealth. Serious differences between Russia and

Ukraine have already arisen regarding economic and financial

issues and on the question of dividing the Soviet army, navy and

air force, the handling of nuclear weapons and border issues on

land and sea. There are independence movements among minority

nationalities in Russia and civil wars in Georgia and between

Armenia and Azerbaijan.

The economic chaos has been aggravated by liberalizing prices on

January 2. The prices of many basic commodities have multiplied

up to more than twenty times. The state stores are being emptied

by backdoor sales to the free market. Even food aid from abroad

has flowed into the free market. More than half of the population

have fallen below the poverty line and are in danger of starving.

Ninety per cent of the population is expected to fall below the

poverty line. Under these circumstances, street demonstrations

and workers' strikes are occurring against the openly capitalist

regimes. The trade unions are agitated by the severely oppressive

and exploitative conditions and have begun to conduct strikes on

a wide scale. The Unity for Leninism and Communist Ideals, the

United Front of the Working People, the Russian Workers'

Communist Party and the Communist Party of Bolsheviks in

Leningrad (St. Petersburg) have been among the most militant in

staging mass actions against the Russian bourg eois regime of

Yeltsin.

In the Soviet Union, more than 90 percent of the major industries

are still owned by the state. This is also true in the case of

the East European countries, with the exception of Poland whose

privatisation has gone fastest and whose state-owned enterprises

are still about 65 percent, according to one report. This

continuing predominance of state-owned enterprises does not mean

socialism. Since a long time ago, many of these enterprises have

acquired a capitalist character. They have long come under the

control and have become instruments of the bureaucrat capitalists

and the private entrepreneurs although these are state-owned. The

ongoing privatisation of these state enterprises is slowed down

by the dearth of genuine private venture capital, the

disappearance of savings among the people and the lack of foreign

interest in acquiring outmoded plants and investing in new ones.

The excommunist bourgeoisie and the foreign investors are most

interested in acquiring at scandalously low prices those state

assets that yield quick and large profits. Inefficient and

decrepit state enterprises are maintained only as they are still

needed and continue being the milking cows of private

entrepreneurs (e.g., steel and other metals, energy and other raw

materials, transport, etc.) Closures and reduced production are

continuing at an accelerated pace. In the process, millions of

workers are laid off. There is a process of deindustrialization

throwing back the former Soviet Union or the republics of the

so-called CIS and Eastern Europe into the quagmire of third world

capitalism.

A strong political and economic center is absent in the CIS. But

in the meantime, there is a strong military center because the

central command of the former Soviet armed forces is retained.

Even the leaders of the capitalist countries who are worried

about the nuclear and other strategic weapons insist that these

be under a single military command. However, the political and

economic chaos can induce the military officers to take matters

into their hands as the military rank and file and the broad

masses of the people are already gravely discontented.

It is still a matter of conjecture for outside observers whether

there will be a social upheaval in the tradition of the

Bolsheviks (the military rank and file linking up with the

workers' organizations) or a coup to install military fascism

over the entire scope of the so-called commonwealth or in a

series of republics (like now in Georgia). The prevalent view is

that the new bourgeoisie inside and outside the armed forces is

so powerful that for the time being the likelihood for military

fascism to rise is greater than the return to the socialist road

if there is going to be any new drastic development.

IV. Certain Lessons from the Collapse of Modern Revisionism

in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe

It is of crucial importance to make a precise description of the

ruling parties and regimes in the Soviet Union and Eastern

Europe, the crisis that conspicuously beset them since the early

1980s and their collapse from 1989 to 1991. These ruling parties

and regimes were revisionist. Their crisis and collapse are not

those of socialism but of modern revisionism or capitalist

restoration masquerading as socialism. The blatant restoration of

capitalism and the class dictatorship of the bourgeoisie are the

indubitable proof. The unraveling of the revisionist systems and

the unfolding of the truth in the few years before the collapse

occurred right before our eyes.

There is ideological and political confusion if the crisis and

collapse of the revisionist ruling parties and regimes are

described as those of socialism or Stalinism rather than of

modern revisionism. Such a description would continue to pass off

modern revisionism as socialism. All Marxist-Leninists must

firmly recognize the fact that modern revisionism had undermined

and prevailed over socialism long before the former itself

plunged into a crisis and led to the collapse of the revisionist

ruling parties and regimes from 1989 to 1991.

One may speak of a crisis of socialism only in the thinking of

some of those who presume modern revisionism to be socialism and

observe the crisis and collapse of the ruling revisionist parties

and regimes. The imperialists, the revisionists themselves and

the bourgeois intelligentsia simplistically call the crisis and

collapse of these anti-Stalin parties and regimes as the "crisis

of Stalinism" or the "Stalinist model of socialism". Stalin has

been dead for 38 years and a process of "de-Stalinization" has

been going on for the last 35 years. It is preposterous that long

after his death Stalin is still being blamed for what his

detractors have done or not done all these years in order to

promote modern revisionism and restore capitalism. This is pure

obscurantism and personality cult in reverse! The merits and

demerits of any leader must be considered only within his period

of responsibility, unless the objective is not to make a

historical assessment but to demonize a leader and use psywar to

attack Marxism-Leninism and socialism in a bourgeois

personalistic manner. The modern revisionists should not be

allowed to cover up their responsibility within their own period

of rule. As a matter of fact, Stalin's great achievements in

socialist construction and defense of the Soviet Union are

diametrically opposed to the restoration of capitalism and the

disintegration of the Soviet Union by the modern revisionists.

We must draw the correct lessons from the betrayal and sabotage

of socialism by the modern revisionists from Khrushchov through

Brezhnev to Gorbachov. We must combat those forces and elements

that wish to destroy the Party and the revolutionary movement

from within by aping Gorbachov and the like and opposing the

basic revolutionary principles of the Party.

The Antirevisionist Line

The reconsideration of the revisionist ruling parties as

Marxist-Leninist and the revisionist regimes as socialist since

1982 by certain elements within the Party has generated

misunderstanding of scientific socialism and a deviation from the

antirevisionist line of the Party. This must be rectified in view

of the undeniable fact of the collapse of the revisionist ruling

parties and regimes and in connection with the correction of the

exaggerated, incorrect and futile notion that these parties and

regimes could extend assistance for accelerating the victory of

the Philippine revolution.

As a result of the collapse of these parties and regimes, the CPP

is ever more resolved to adhere to the theory and practice of

Marxism-Leninism and to pursue the antirevisionist line and

persevere in armed revolution. The anticommunists who seek to use

the collapse of modern revisionism as an invalidation and

complete negation of the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism

deserve nothing but contempt.

The CPP upholds the fact that Marxist-Leninist theory has

correctly guided the proletarian revolutionaries and more than a

billion people to victory in new-democratic revolution and in

socialist revolution and construction. As far as the Philippines

is concerned, the working class is the leading class in the

new-democratic and socialist stages of the revolution. The

advanced detachment of this class is the CPP. Without this party,

the revolutionary mass movement of the people would not have

resurged in Philippine history along the anti-imperialist and

antifeudal line, with a socialist perspective. The petty

bourgeois groups that seek to confuse, discredit, weaken and

destroy the CPP can only continue being servitors of the

oppressors and exploiters without the Party and the toiling

masses of workers and peasants carrying out the revolution most

determinedly.

What the CPP considers now as the greatest challenge in

theoretical work among all proletarian revolutionaries, including

Filipino communists, is learning lessons from the long-term and

peaceful restoration of capitalism in socialist countries and

understanding the way of continuing the revolution, combating

modern revisionism and preventing the restoration of capitalism

in socialist society as well as of fighting for socialism

wherever it has been replaced by capitalism.

In countries where modern revisionism has had its way and

restored capitalism, the challenge in theoretical and practical

work among proletarian revolutionaries is to bring back socialism

and bring it to a new and higher level. The forces of socialism

can probably win again only after undergoing the violence of

capitalist oppression and exploitation and defeating this through

revolutionary violence. There is yet no historical example of a

nonexploiting society replacing an exploiting class society

without revolutionary violence although it has been demonstrated

repeatedly in history that a higher form of society can

degenerate into a lower form through peaceful evolution.

In the course of both the new-democratic and socialist stages of

the Philippines, the basic factors of counterrevolution (big

bourgeoisie and landlord class) are never obliterated completely

(especially in the sphere of ideology and social psychology) by

the main factors of revolution (working class and peasantry). And

there are intermediate factors (urban petty bourgeoisie and

national bourgeoisie) that operate between the two poles of

revolution and counterrevolution. The main factors of revolution

can come on top of those of counterrevolution and in the process

win over the intermediate factors, which in turn exert both

positive and negative influences on the main factors of

revolution.

In the complexity of waging the new-democratic and socialist

stages of the revolution, the proletarian party must uphold its

revolutionary integrity through adherence to Marxism-Leninist

theory, from philosophy down to strategy and tactics, and must

always conduct concrete analysis of concrete conditions in order

to lead the broad masses of the people from victory to victory.

Marxism-Leninism is on the high road of human civilization,

cherishing the heritage from the past, availing of all current

factors that make for progress; and always aiming for a better

future. But it is wrong to use such terms of idealism as

universal humanism, classless populism, supraclass state,

pacifism and such other abstract terms in order to obscure and

negate the proletarian class stand and in fact give way to the

hegemony of the bourgeoisie and other backward forces in the real

world.

It is wrong to declare prematurely the end of exploiting classes

and class struggle while in fact they continue to exist both

domestically and internationally during the entire historical

epoch of socialism. The seeming disappearance of the exploiting

classes by socio-economic definition does not mean that the

proletarian character of the ruling party and the state has

become unnecessary and that the intelligentsia automatically

becomes proletarian in socialist society. In fact, the

bourgeoisie first reemerges through the bureaucracy and the

intellectual sphere as petty bourgeois and then in the social

economy as bureaucrat capitalists colluding with the private

capitalists.

It is wrong to propagate, under the cover of idealist and

metaphysical terms, mechanical materialism, specifically in the

form of the theory of productive forces which posits that the

development of the "productive forces" can onesidedly and

automatically bring about socialist progress. Revolution in the

relations of production as well as in the superstructure must

take the lead over production. Otherwise the idea gains ground

that socialism with a low technological and economic level can

advance only through domestic capitalist-oriented economic

reforms and submission to the industrial capitalist countries.

The Proletarian Dictatorship

Upon the basic completion of the new-democratic revolution

through the seizure of political power in the Philippines, the

people's democratic government is established. This is the form

that the proletarian dictatorship takes in consonance with the

basic worker-peasant alliance under proletarian leadership. Thus,

the socialist revolution can begin in every aspect of society.

The building of a socialist society and not a "national

democratic society" begins, even if there are still transitory

bourgeois democratic measures to undertake.

The people's democratic government or socialist state must of

course serve the entire people. But it cannot be really classless

or supraclass. There is a definite class hegemony, either

proletarian or bourgeois. For communists to waiver about this is

to concede to the initiative of the bourgeoisie and its

intellectual and political agents. The socialist state is

categorically a class dictatorship of the proletariat to preclude

the counterrevolution of the exploiting classes and make

instantly possible the substance and process of democracy for the

entire people. The party must never relinquish its leadership

over the entire state and the people's army and must retain its

Party organization therein until the time comes for the state to

wither away, after a whole historical epoch of building

socialism, defeating imperialism and neocolonialism and preparing

the way for communism.

The modern revisionist bureaucrats systematically opposed the

concept of proletarian dictatorship under the cover of populism

and "no more exploiting classes and no more class struggle" or

the "dying out of the class struggle" in order to resurrect the

bourgeoisie within the bureaucracy as well as in society through

capitalist-oriented reforms. Proletarian dictatorship should

comprehensively guarantee national freedom of the people against

imperialism; class freedom of the exploited against the

exploiting classes; and individual freedom against the ever

potential alienation and abuse of state power.

The socialist constitution and the proletarian dictatorship must

guarantee the civil rights of individuals and organizations that

adhere to socialism, promote public participation in the affairs

of the state and put restraints on the possible abuse of power by

the state and its officials. These restraints include the basic

freedoms, electoral process, popular power of recall, definite

terms of office, age limits and restrictions on personal incomes

and privileges and against any kind of privilege or favor which

is not based on merit.

No elective national leader may be elected for a period longer

than two five-year terms and all officials may retire optionally

at 65 and obligatorily at 70. Any individual or organization has

the right to express anything in any legal way, be this criticism

or constructive proposal without fear of reprisal. Due process is

guaranteed. A person is presumed innocent, unless proven guilty

in a court of law on the basis of evidence and through a fair

trial. Thus, in the popular struggle against counterrevolution,

the target is narrowed and the danger of abuse is averted.

But as already demonstrated in the collapse of the revisionist

ruling parties and regimes, it is incorrect to promote individual

freedom outside of the clear framework of anti-imperialism

(national freedom) and socialism (freedom from the exploiting

classes). Individual freedom should not become the license for

the imperialists and the local bourgeoisie and other

reactionaries to oppose socialism and regain control over

society.

In the entire historical epoch of socialism, the proletariat must

see to it that the leading role of the proletariat is upheld in

the constitution. Subsequent to the democratic coalition

government by consensus, there can be an upper house of congress

as the house of the working people under proletarian leadership

and a lower house of congress as the house of the district

representatives of the people. Retired but still mentally able

revolutionary leaders can be in advisory councils enjoying high

moral authority, most useful in any moment of constitutional

crisis that may threaten the revolution.

The proletarian revolutionary party should never be thought of as

just any party, comparable to any party in the multiplicity of

permitted parties in the bourgeois political system as in the

current multiparty system of the Philippines which is actually

monopolized by political factions of the exploiting classes. The

Party is a revolutionary party that seeks and effects a radical

rupture from private ownership of the means of production and all

exploiting societies which have existed in various forms for

millennia.

Notwithstanding the radical rupture sought and the mission of the

working class to build socialism in a whole historical epoch,

working class parties which come to power have limited their

memberships to a small part of society (typically five to ten

percent of the population), with the Party expanding its

influence in society through mass organizations and state

agencies. It is understandable that the Party is a small part of

society in the course of the fierce struggle to seize power

because of the coercive power of the reactionary state and the

dangers to life, limb and liberty to Party members and that there

is a limit to the expansion of Party membership soon after the

seizure of political power to avert the avalanche of overnight

communists and opportunists coming into the Party. But after the

consolidation of political power and proletarian control of all

aspects of society, especially the educational and cultural

system, there is no reason why the Party should not increase its

membership up to the point of including the majority of the

people.

The Party has a cadre and mass character now. It should continue

to be so after the seizure of political power. The cadres can

ensure the high quality of the Party and the mass membership, the

strong democratic foundation formed by workers and peasants. The

Party cannot automatically ensure its high revolutionary quality

by simply remaining small. On the other hand, it is liable to be

swamped by an excessively high proportion of intelligentsia,

including fictitious communists. Worse, the party will be

increasingly regarded as a small and privileged part of society.

If the Party remains small, it can be challenged any time by any

political group or movement which has a comparatively large or

even larger membership; or by the traditionally dominant church

which registers most or much of the population as its members and

claims the religious or moral allegiance of these people.

In accordance with the historic mission of the working class to

build socialism, the representatives of the Party must be assured

of at least one third of elective positions in the state

alongside the representatives of the mass organizations of the

working people and other sections of society. But within every

slot allotted to the major components of society, the people

inside and outside the Party must be able to choose candidates

from a list in an electoral process.

With a large mass membership, the Party can confidently engage in

multiparty cooperation along the united front line. The worst

kind of model is a political system of only one party which

includes only a small fraction of society. The socialist society

must be able to allow the existence and cooperation of several

parties which offer lists of candidates subject to the consensus

in the socialist united front, the electoral will of the people

and the constitutional framework of socialist revolution and

construction.

Socialist Revolution and Construction

Upon the basic completion of the new-democratic revolution

through the seizure of political power, the proletariat and the

people under the leadership of the Party can begin socialist

revolution and construction. The means of production and

distribution owned by the imperialists, big compradors and

landlords are put under public ownership. The strategic

enterprises and the main lines of production and distribution are

nationalized. These comprise the initial base for socialist

construction. Then the socialist state sector of the productive

system can be expanded with further investments from the

available domestic capital, export income and productive foreign

borrowing.

But there are bourgeois-democratic economic reforms that still

need to be undertaken as transitory measures, such as land reform

and concessions to peasants of all strata and petty and middle

bourgeois nonmonopoly commodity producers. These reforms and

concessions do not mean the building of a "national-democratic

economy" in lieu of a socialist economy. The cooperativization of

agriculture and nonagricultural enterprises as well as joint

state-private ownership can be carried out from one stage to a

higher one in conjunction with socialist construction and further

industrialization.

In view of the fact that so far in history socialist economies

have been established upon a low economic and technological level

and worse after a ruinous war, the proletarian revolutionary

party is obliged to adopt transitory measures. How long these

measures should run depends on the concrete conditions. In the

Soviet Union, Lenin had to adopt the New Economic Policy. And

Stalin subsequently pioneered in drawing up and implementing the

series of five-year plans of socialist construction. He succeeded

in building a socialist industrial economy. But even after a

socialist industrial economy had been established, the modern

revisionists misrepresented Lenin's New Economic Policy as the

way to socialism rather than as a mere transitory measure. Thus,

Khrushchov, Brezhnev and Gorbachov made this misrepresentation by

using the name of Lenin against Lenin. They justified the

retrogression to capitalist-oriented reforms by counterposing

Lenin's transitional policy to Stalin's program to build

publicly-owned heavy and basic industries and collectivize

agriculture in a planned way. After the New Economic Policy

served its purpose, Stalin carried out fullscale socialist

construction. It was prompt and absolutely necessary to do so in

the face of the growth of capitalism threatening the socialist

revolution. Anti-socialist critics decry overinvestment in heavy

and basic industries, the suppression of the rebellious rich

peasants and the exploitation of the peasantry. But they fail to

mention that the hard work, the struggle against the

counterrevolutionaries and the sacrifice resulted in the raising

of production and standard of living, the mechanization of

agriculture and the expansion of urban life in so short a period

of time. If Bukharin had had his way and prolonged the NEP, the

Soviet Union would have generated an uncontrollable bourgeoisie

and a widespread rich peasantry to overpower the proletariat,

would have had less economic well-being and less defense

capability, would have been an easier prey to Hitler and would

have been attacked earlier by Nazi Germa ny.

After World War II, China under the leadership of Mao Zedong and

the Communist Party of China was able to demonstrate that there

could be a well-balanced growth of agriculture as the foundation

of the economy, heavy industry as the leading factor and light

industry as the bridging factor between the first two. The line

of Mao was to provide as quickly as possible the producer and

consumer goods for the people, especially the peasant masses. But

even Mao was unfairly accused by modern revisionists of

industrial overinvestment and premature cooperativization. At any

rate, the Chinese example under the leadership of Mao bettered

the Soviet example under the leadership of Stalin in

well-balanced development in a poor country engaged in socialist

construction. The theory and practice of scientific socialism,

therefore, is ever developing.

All modern revisionists are carried away by the theory of

"productive forces" and economism. They prate about the law of

value but at the same time they obscure the critical Marxist

theory of surplus value and the creative line of using what is

otherwise private profit as social profit and of converting what

is otherwise an anarchic yet monopolistic production for private

profit into a system of planned production for use and for the

benefit of the entire society.

Marxists have always agreed with Adam Smith and his followers

that the value of a commodity is equivalent to the average

socially necessary labor time and that the exchange value (price)

is realized in the market. In the socialist system, there is a

system of wage differentials paid according to quantity and

quality of work done. Within the system of public ownership of

the means of production and economic planning, the new value

created is allocated for the wages fund for consumption, economic

reinvestment not only to cover depreciation but also expansion of

production, general welfare (education, health, infrastructure,

etc.), administration and national defense.

Aside from the wage system with differentials which corresponds

to the system of commodity values, the commodities produced

incorporate inputs which are bought from other parts of the

domestic or world market at certain prices and which are taken

into account in the market price of the commodities. Price

comparisons can also be made with similar commodities produced

abroad.

The socialist system of production has proven to be effective in

creating full employment, attaining high rates of economic

growth, responding to the basic needs of the people and providing

social services until a new bourgeoisie starts to appropriate an

increasing part of the surplus product and develops a taste for

highgrade consumer goods which it at first acquires through

institutional buying from abroad.

In addition to the high consumption and excessive privileges of

the new bourgeoisie, another big drain is the misallocation of

resources towards military expenditures because of the

imperialist threat. This in fact constituted the biggest drain on

the resources of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe under the

long reign of Brezhnev. But this is obscured by imperialist

propaganda whenever it asserts that socialism is inherently

flawed or that the so-called Stalinist model pursued by the

modern revisionists has failed. In going for the arms race, the

Brezhnev regime deviated from the concepts of people's defense

and all-round consolidation adhered to by Stalin when the Soviet

Union was militarily weaker and faced bigger threats from the

capitalist powers.

The fact is that the socialist economies progressed for a certain

number of decades and it would take another number of decades for

the modern revisionists to make these economies retrogress into

capitalism, under such bourgeois notions as stimulating

production and improving the quality of production through

private enterprise and the free market.

The adoption of capitalist-oriented reforms to "supplement" and

"assist" socialist economic development is thereby wrongly

rationalized. But the bourgeoisie, the corrupt bureaucrats and

rich peasants are recreated and generated to undermine and

destroy socialism from within. After a certain period of

liberalization of the economy, the bourgeois forces can demand

further privatisation and marketization more vigorously and

ultimately claim political power as in Eastern Europe and Soviet

Union.

But usually at the beginning of their effort to subvert the

socialist economy, when there are yet no significant number of

private entrepreneurs within the country, they wage a campaign

for learning "efficient management" from capitalist countries

(unmindful of the wasteful business cycles and wars and the

centuries of exploiting the proletariat, the colonies and the

spheres of influence), for expanded trade with the capitalist

countries, foreign investments, loans and technology transfer and

therefore for an investment law attractive to the multinational

firms and banks as well as to the domestic bourgeoisie which must

be promoted if even the foreign bourgeoisie is allowed to enjoy

the freedom of investing and owning assets in the country and

hiring local people.

Without having to breach or abandon basic socialist principles

and without having to enlarge domestic and foreign private

ownership of the means of production, it is possible to use wage

differentials and bonuses as incentives for raising the quantity

and quality of goods according to reliable and accurate

information on productive capacity and consumer demand and

according to the resultant economic plan, to satisfy the basic

needs of the people first and then to proceed to produce nonbasic

goods for improving the standard of living, to build one

generation of better housing after another as a lifetime

incentive and to decentralize economic activities with better

results.

The production of both basic and nonbasic consumer goods are

complementary and interactive. When basic needs are satisfied and

private savings mount, the people start looking for things to

spend on in order to improve or make their lives more

interesting. Some highgrade consumer goods can be locally

produced. Others can be imported without prejudicing the priority

given to the development of the entire economy and the

importation of essential producer and consumer goods.

In the case of the Soviet Union, before there could be a

Gorbachov, there was the prolonged period of Brezhnev in which

the new bourgeoisie developed domestically and resources were

wasted in the arms race and in the costly commitments abroad

under the theory of defending the Soviet Union by developing the

strategic offense capability and by being able to wage wars

abroad.

We have seen that the concept of people's defense or people's war

against an aggressor, within the people's self-reliant

capabilities, within their own national borders and without

undermining the growth of the socialist economy, still

constitutes the correct policy. The Soviet corps of research

scientists, engineers and technologists was the largest in the

world. They made great advances in basic research, experiments

and prototyping. But only those advances suitable to the high

technology requirements of the arms race were used in a big way.

And because of disorientation and some false sense of economy in

civil production, old and outmoded equipment tended to be kept

and reproduced so that this exceedingly important area of the

economy was deprived of the benefits of high technology.

In a socialist economy, the planners must adopt a reasonable

measure for depreciation of productive equipment, durable

consumer goods and infrastructures so that there is room for

innovation and enlivening of production. It is not true that

there has to be competition among capitalists in order to

generate new and better products. The Soviet Union was able to

keep on raising its military and space technology in a planned

way.

In carrying out socialist construction, after the transitory

period of reviving the economy from the ravages of war and

completing the bourgeois-democratic reforms, we shall uphold the

principle of instituting the socialist relations of production to

liberate the productive forces and promote their growth; and

after having advanced along the socialist line and gone beyond

certain transitory measures, we shall never retrogress to the

revisionist line of using capitalist-oriented reforms to push

socialism forward.

The Cultural Revolution

In continuing the revolution, combating revisionism and other

counterrevolutionary forces and preventing the restoration of

capitalism in socialist society, the cultural revolution must be

carried out coextensively and interactively with the political

and socioeconomic revolution. If we are to avoid the errors which

caused the failure of the great proletarian cultural revolution

in China, we must grasp that the cultural revolution is a

persuasive democratic process with Marxist-Leninist theory in the

lead carried out along the general line of the people's

revolutionary struggle, that the process is a protracted one and

so many times more protracted than either the people's war or

socialist economic construction and should not be rushed in order

not to be persecutory; and that to preempt anarchy institutions

like the Party, the state, the people's organizations, the

educational system, the mass media and so on should take on

responsibility for leadership over the cultural mass movement,

with due process rigorously followed and the rights of

individuals and groups respected. The cultural revolution is an

important process for keeping high the proletarian revolutionary

consciousness and the spirit of selflessness and service to the

people. As one generation after another draws away from the

accomplished process of seizing political power from the

reactionaries and the heroic efforts to establish a socialist

society, those who are in the bureaucracy of the ruling party,

the state and even in the mass organizations can degenerate into

a new bourgeoisie and adopt modern revisionism and other

retrograde ideas and policies. The youth and intelligentsia can

adopt petty-bourgeois attitudes and grow cynical towards those in

power and fall for anticommunist views and adulate the ideas and

fashions of the domestic and international bourgeoisie.

Even while we are still engaged in the new-democratic revolution

in the Philippines, we are already carrying out a cultural

revolution among the people. We are promoting a cultural

revolution with a national, democratic and scientific character.

At the core of this revolutionary mass phenomenon are proletarian

revolutionary cadres guided by the theory of Marxism-Leninism.

Our cultural revolution of a new-democratic type is distinct from

and yet continuous with the socialist cultural revolution. Like

now, we shall continue to combine Party leadership, the mass

movement and a strong sense of the rights of the individual

within the anti-imperialist and socialist framework. We shall

take all the necessary time, no matter how long, to raise the

people's revolutionary consciousness from one level to another

through formal and informal educational and cultural activities

and to isolate and defeat the ideas that run counter to

socialism.

In socialist society, we shall carry out the cultural revolution

to promote the proletarian revolutionary stand and the spirit of

service to the people. The cultural revolution shall ceaselessly

put revolutionary politics (patriotic and proletarian) and moral

incentive in command of production and other social activities.

The revolutionization of the superstructure shall complement and

interact with the revolutionization of the mode of production.

When the bourgeoisie is deprived of its economic and political

power, it seeks to make a comeback at first in the ideological

and cultural fields. When it succeeds at ideological revision and

cultural pollution, then it can undertake the changes in

political and economic policies which favor capitalist

restoration. The bourgeoisie is most effective when it can work

through unremoulded and degenerate elements within the state and

the ruling party. The proletarian revolutionaries have therefore

to be ever vigilant and resolute in maintaining the correct line

and in militantly waging the socialist cultural revolution.

The main contradiction in socialist society is the one between

the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The old bourgeois class and

the landlord class are easy to identify and the people are

vigilant towards them. So the members of these defeated classes

would rather encourage the intelligentsia and the bureaucracy to

start adopting the petty-bourgeois mode of thinking and behavior.

On the basis of this, the bourgeoisie can regain lost ground,

especially in the ideological and cultural fields. When the

proletariat loses the fight in these fields, the already

pronounced bourgeois revisionists can push the anti-proletarian

change of political and economic policies under the guise of

transcending classes and class struggle.

By that time, the bourgeoisie shall have been well on the way of

reimposing itself on the proletariat and the people and restoring

capitalism. The restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union and

Eastern Europe proves that the victory of socialism is not

irreversible in the era of imperialism and proletarian

revolution. All proletarian revolutionaries can learn important

lessons from the way the bourgeoisie has come on top of the

proletariat in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe through

peaceful evolution from within the state and the party and by

using the state against the party, particularly the dwindling

proletarian revolutionaries in the party.

In building socialism as the long-term preparation for communism,

we shall strive to reduce the gap and solve the contradictions

between the proletariat and peasantry, between mental and

physical labor and between urban and rural life. We shall do so

by mustering the capabilities of the proletariat and the rest of

the people, utilizing science and technology and fostering a

socialist civilization.

We owe to Mao the theory of continuing revolution, combating

modern revisionism and preventing capitalist restoration in

socialist society; and the application of this theory in the

great proletarian cultural revolution, which succeeded for a

number of years until the errors accumulated and resulted in a

Rightist backlash. If the positive aspects are upheld and the

negative aspects are corrected, then Mao's theory and practice of

the cultural revolution can be the treasury of knowledge on the

basic principles and methods for continuing the revolution in

socialist society. The theoretical work on the cultural

revolution is a wide and open field for study.

The failure of a revolution is never the permanent end of it. The

Paris Commune of 1871 succeeded briefly and failed. But the

theory of class struggle and proletarian dictatorship was never

invalidated. After 46 years, the Great October Socialist

Revolution triumphed. Then, the forces of fascism wiped out the

working class parties in many European countries and eventually

invaded the Soviet Union. But soon after World War II, several

socialist countries arose in Eastern Europe and Asia.

Modern revisionism would emerge to afflict a number of socialist

countries. And finally from 1989 to 1991, we witnessed the

collapse of revisionist parties and regimes. This confirms the

correctness of the Marxist-Leninist criticism and repudiation of

modern revisionism and eliminates a certain number of revisionist

parties and regimes which have caused theoretical and political

confusion in the socialist and anti-imperialist movement.

Unfortunately, the capitalist powers have become more arrogant

and cruel upon the disappearance of the Soviet Union as a

superpower rival of the United States. But they are beset by the

crisis of overproduction and contradictions are growing between

them and their client states in the imperialist and neocolonial

framework. In fact the continuing crisis of the countries in

which capitalism and bourgeois dictatorship have been restored in

a blatant manner, has all along been part of the global

capitalist crisis. The former Soviet republics and the East

European countries have become hotbeds of nationalism, ethnic

conflicts, militarism and civil war and lay bare the rottenness

of the capitalist system.

Upon the aggravation of capitalist oppression and exploitation,

the anti-imperialist and socialist cause is bound to surge to a

new and higher level. The high technology in the hands of the

capitalist powers has already deepened and aggravated the crisis

of overproduction. The trade war among the capitalist powers is

developing in the wake of the end of the bipolar Cold War. The

United States is disturbing the balance among the capitalist

powers as it seeks to revive its productive capacity, expand its

trade and solve its huge deficit and debt problems in an

environment where the other capitalist powers are holding tightly

on to their productive and trade advantages and all neocolonial

client states (except a few earners of export surplus due to U.S.

market accommodations) in the South and East are long depressed

and find no relief from deficits, debt problem and austerity

measures.

For sometime, notwithstanding the disappearance of the

two-superpower rivalry, the social turbulence and political

violence will increase throughout the world. From these will

reemerge the anti-imperialist and socialist movement at a new and

higher level. The increased oppression and exploitation of the

peoples of the world can only serve to generate the revolutionary

movement. What has come about as a hostile environment for this

movement is a precondition and a challenge for its resurgence.

Proletarian Internationalism

The ever worsening crisis of the Philippine ruling system

provides the fertile ground for the continuance and growth in

strength of the revolutionary mass movement led by the Communist

Party of the Philippines. But to gain total victory in the

new-democratic revolution and proceed to the socialist

revolution, the Party must take fully into account the

international situation and draw further strength from the world

proletariat and other positive forces abroad.

In international relations, we must be guided above all by the

principle of proletarian internationalism. Especially in the

current situation, we must unite and close ranks with the working

class parties and organizations that adhere to Marxism-Leninism

and are waging revolutionary struggles in their respective

countries.

The ever worsening crisis of the world capitalist system and the

ever escalating oppression and exploitation are prodding the

proletarian revolutionaries and peoples in countries to reaffirm

the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism. Even now, it is

clear that the current decade is one of social turmoil in the

world capitalist system and popular resistance to neocolonialism.

It is not going to be a decade of Pax Americana and capitulation

by the forces of revolutionary change.

More than a billion people (a quarter of humanity) continue to

live and work in societies that consider themselves socialist and

are led by parties that consider themselves communist. The crisis

of world capitalist system shall have become far worse than now

before the degree or semblance of socialism that exists in the

world can be erased.

The disintegration of the revisionist ruling parties and regimes

in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union and their counterparts

abroad is part of the crisis of the world capitalist system and

is in fact a positive development in the sense that it provides

alerting lessons to all proletarian revolutionaries, demonstrate

the folly of straying from Marxism-Leninism and from the road of

socialism and argues against the illusions that the modern

revisionists have conjured for a long time on a world scale.

In accordance with the principle of proletarian internationalism,

the Communist Party of the Philippines is more than ever

determined to engage in all possible ways to develop mutual

understanding, fraternal relations, and mutual support and

cooperation with all working class parties and proletarian

revolutionaries the world over.

The Party is grateful to all fraternal proletarian parties for

the moral and concrete support that they extend to the resolute

revolutionary struggle of the Filipino people and for recognizing

the Party as one of the advanced detachments of the world

proletariat which can contribute to the restrengthening of the

world socialist and anti- imperialist movement in theory and

practice. Like today when it sincerely follows the slogan,

"Workers of all countries, unite!" and gives uppermost importance

to the world unity of workers through party-to-party relations,

the Party shall uphold proletarian internationalism as the

highest principle and general line of international relations

when it is in power and shall give the uppermost importance to

the world unity of workers through party-to-party relations as

well as through the relations of the socialist state with other

socialist states.

Fidelity to proletarian internationalism is a necessary measure

of whether a party is Marxist-Leninist or not and whether a state

is socialist or not. It is aimed at creating the world conditions

for socialism to prevail over capitalism, for the working class

to defeat the bourgeoisie and all reaction, and paving the way

for communism; and therefore at realizing the mutual support and

cooperation of all proletarian revolutionary forces, without any

party or state infringing on the independence and equality of

others.

We have seen parties and states that start out as proletarian

revolutionary but later degenerate and become revisionist and

relate with other parties and states only as these become

subservient and become their foreign policy tools. They

subordinate the principle of proletarian internationalism to

diplomatic and economic relations with bourgeois states. They

stop mentioning proletarian internationalism as if it were a

dirty phrase as cosmopolitan relations with transnational

corporations and banks gain the uppermost importance.

Learning lessons from recent history, the Communist Party of the

Philippines is resolved that in the future the foreign policy of

the new Philippines shall encompass relations with other

socialist states, with working class parties, with peoples and

revolutionary movements and with states (irrespective of ideology

or social system) in that order of importance, under the guidance

of proletarian internationalism in basic correspondence to the

socialist character of the state and the proletarian

revolutionary character of the ruling party.

The Party is confident that the ever worsening crisis of the

world capitalist system and the resurgence of the socialist and

anti-imperialist movement will create the global conditions

favorable for their winning total victory in the new-democratic

revolution and for establishing a socialist society that requires

the proletarian party and state to practise proletarian

internationalism at a new and higher level. #

Armando Liwanag

Chairman, Central Committee

Communist Party of the Philippines

________________________________________

Political Parties advocating National Democracy:

Argentina: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Party_%28Argentina%29

Egypt : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Party_%28Egypt%29

Germany: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Party_of_Germany_%28NPD%29

Italy : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Party_%28Italy%29

Lithuania : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Party_%28Lithuania%29

Nepal : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Party_%28Nepal%29

Pakistan : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Party_%28Pakistan%29

Poland : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democracy

UK : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Party_%28UK_1960s%29

USA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Institute







Report this post as:

Anti-revisionist struggle

by Armando Liwanag Tuesday, Nov. 01, 2011 at 8:20 AM

Report this post as:

Anti-revisionist struggle

by Armando Liwanag Tuesday, Nov. 01, 2011 at 8:20 AM

Report this post as:

Anti-revisionist struggle

by Armando Liwanag Tuesday, Nov. 01, 2011 at 8:20 AM

Report this post as:

Anti-revisionist struggle

by Armando Liwanag Tuesday, Nov. 01, 2011 at 8:20 AM

Report this post as:

Anti-revisionist struggle

by Armando Liwanag Tuesday, Nov. 01, 2011 at 8:20 AM

Report this post as:

Anti-revisionist struggle

by Armando Liwanag Tuesday, Nov. 01, 2011 at 8:20 AM

Report this post as:

Anti-revisionist struggle

by Armando Liwanag Tuesday, Nov. 01, 2011 at 8:20 AM

Report this post as:

Anti-revisionist struggle

by Armando Liwanag Tuesday, Nov. 01, 2011 at 8:20 AM

Report this post as:

Anti-revisionist struggle

by Armando Liwanag Tuesday, Nov. 01, 2011 at 8:20 AM

Report this post as:

Local News

Marshall Tuck’s racist dog whistle O27 5:01AM

Marshall Tuck’s ethnocentrism contradicts Californian values O27 4:32AM

Contra Costa-Hawkins O25 3:48AM

Debunking Some Anti-Prop 10 Propaganda O12 6:56AM

Why Should California Choose De Leon Over Feinstein? O10 9:55PM

Change Links September 2018 posted S02 10:22PM

More Scandals Rock Southern California Nuke Plant San Onofre A30 11:09PM

Site Outage Friday A30 3:49PM

Change Links August 2018 A14 1:56AM

Setback for Developer of SC Farm Land A12 11:09PM

More problems at Shutdown San Onofre Nuke J29 10:40PM

Change Links 2018 July posted J09 8:27PM

More Pix: "Families Belong Together," Pasadena J02 7:16PM

"Families Belong Together" March, Pasadena J02 7:08PM

Short Report on the Families Belong Together Protest in Los Angeles J30 11:26PM

Summer 2018 National Immigrant Solidarity Network News Alert! J11 6:58AM

Watch the Debate: Excluded Candidates for Governor of California M31 5:20AM

Change Links June 2018 posted M28 7:41AM

The Montrose Peace Vigil at 12 Years M22 8:01PM

Unity Archive Project M21 9:42AM

Dianne Feinstein's Promotion of War, Secret Animal Abuse, Military Profiteering, Censorshi M17 10:22PM

CA Senate Bill 1303 would require an independent coroner rather than being part of police M10 9:08PM

Three years after OC snitch scandal, no charges filed against sheriffs deputies M10 8:57PM

More Local News...

Other/Breaking News

Help translation of From Islam To Womanism book on IndieGoGo N13 12:04PM

COP 21, 25, 32, de l'écocide organisé N11 11:45PM

fbi & fmj are ' Lord of the Flies ' N11 8:26PM

Parangon d'une grande infestation N11 12:03AM

Video: Beautiful Country Burn Again, 39 min N10 10:19PM

OBAMA WERE POW'S LEFTBEHIND IN AFGHANISTAN IRAQ AND LIBYA N08 7:57PM

OBAMA WERE POWS LEFT BEHIND IN AFGAHNISTAN IRAQ AND LIBYA N08 7:29PM

DID BARACK OBAMA LEAVE POWS BEHIND IN AFGAHNISTAN IRAQ AND LIBYA N08 6:43PM

DID BARACK OBAMA LEAVE POWS BEHIND IN AFGHANISTAN IRAQ AND LIBYA N08 5:50PM

Paraphysique de l'Etat d'urgence N08 4:24AM

Republican Vote Fraud Reached A New Level In Midterms N07 7:50PM

Lobotomisation populationnelle N07 7:28AM

Texas Finally Ousts Culberson! N07 4:43AM

Israel Quit UNESCO, Um-Shmum, Make Ben-Gurion Proud! N06 7:37PM

Mafia City Hack Mod Generator - Generate 15.000 Gold N06 2:04AM

Ronald L. Havner & The Sleazy Corporate Whores @PublicStorage RAPED ME! N05 10:25PM

Trumponomics and Wall Street Rejoices N05 11:36AM

8 GOP Candidates For Governor Want Executions To Continue In Their States N05 10:11AM

Paraphysique de l'hybris pirocratie N05 7:40AM

Pity Yitzhak Rabin Wasn’t Israel’s Trump! N03 11:01PM

Une machine c'est crétin N03 7:45AM

Nuke Plants Cause Excess CancerDeaths When Running, Rates Decline When They Shut Down N01 10:20PM

Right-wing Populism: A Wave of Nostalgia N01 11:02AM

Paraphysique du profit de l'horreur N01 8:11AM

Trump: A Disaster For Animals As Well As People O31 10:25PM

26 Ways Trump Has Increased The National Debt By 4 to 5 Trillion Dollars O31 9:44PM

Right-wing Populism: Can More Madness Cure the Madness? O31 2:13AM

OUR HOUSE Grief Support Center Presents Night for Hope O30 5:38PM

More Breaking News...
© 2000-2018 Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy