A Critic of “Fundamentalist Thesis” of Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) from Romania
We received an email from Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist)Romania. How ever we did not have any contact with them, but receiving their email, made us study their stands. This “Communist” party really has had an extra-ordinary “contributions” to Leninism! This was revealed whilst studying their stands (i.e. “Fundamentalist thesis”), and those contributions, which really is ridiculous, is a plain eclecticism, that of a petit-bourgeois superficial trend. Previously, in international communist movement, there were many eclectic stands, imposing petit bourgeois, bourgeois and social-chauvinist stands. Those stands had a common identity, and that was the still early age of communist movement. After Glorious October Great Revolution of 1917, opportunists and revisionists, mainly social chauvinists were theoretically defeated by victory of Leninist contributions and its spreading globally. After world war two, the borders between all lines and stands arguing communism was clearly introduced. There were Trotskyites, Castroites, Tetoists, and other revisionist trends which each argued to be Leninist or a continuation of Marxism-Leninism. But, all of such trends, were in a position of refuting each other, and were claiming to be in command and were arguing to be the new contributions to Leninism. This was to all of them. The thing which is “new” to revisionism of this so called “Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) Romania, is its raw idealization of unifying differing and even opposing stands and trends, and mixing them to create an Amalgam, and calling it “Marxism-Leninism”!
Revolutionary Communists all accept that: Chairman Mao-Tse-Tung the great leader of world proletariat and the oppressed people of the world. All communists accept that Maoism is the new and higher stage in Marxism, which develops Marxism-Leninism to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. To chairman Mao, Trotsky was a traitor, who betrayed communism. True, this is accepted by all communists over the world. Che Guevara, how ever being a revolutionary, was never a firm communist presenting any correct line, and no Marxist-Leninist of yesterday, and no Communist o today accept the argument of great or unique contribution of Che to Marxism-Leninism. Rather, Guevarism was to be exposed as a deviation from Leninism. This is why some of Trotskyites still are interested to banner him. We honor Che Guevara’s relatively positive anti- imperialist struggling, but this does not mean approving his opportunist and anti-Leninist theories. To Mao, Trotsky was a traitor whom betrayed Leninism, and was the enemy of Soviet people. To Trotsky, Mao was the follower of Joseph Stalin, and Stalin was the one whom did not leave any space room for Trotskyite opportunism in Communist party ofSoviet Union. So, Mixing and uniting Mao and Trotsky is only A Farce. No sound brain and no wise man can claim such a rubbish and ridiculous thing! But, “Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) ofRomaniaDoes! Let us have a critical view to their “fundamental thesis”. We do this step by step till reaching their “Masterpiece” contribution of Mixing Trotskyite opportunism with Marxism-Leninism.
The so called “Fundamentalist Thesis” starts as:
“Communist Party (ml) ofRomaniais an organization Communist nationalist fundamentalists, the “gun” of the poor against the rich, the political and organizational arm of the New Proletarian Revolution”
We “neglect” proofreading the grammar of the above complex sentence! We focus on interpreting that.
There is a Chauvinists organization inAmericawhich calls itself National-Bolshevik. The world still remembers that: the Nazis were “National-Socialists”! Nationalism never joins and accepts communism. A nationalist scenario never serves communism. Communists and communist parties can get benefit of the nationalist movements against imperialism and colonialism, but, this only can be done if those movements are under command of communist parties. But, A communist party never can be a nationalist. Communists and Communist parties never call themselves nationalist. Nationalism is a different scenario and never equates communism, and a communist party, never synchronically is able to be a “nationalist” one. If a communist party is “nationalist”, and argues for nationalism, then it can only be a nationalist party and it will not serve for proletariat. It serves to petit bourgeois intellectuals and it is in service o Nazis.
Second, the so called Romanian “Communist” party calls itself as “Fundamentalist”.
If they mean it as Orthodox Marxists, this is not true. Because, a nationalist one, never is a Marxist, and it will never be an orthodox Marxist too.
A Nationalist party serving for oppressor class never can be the “gun” of the poor. It is simply the “gun” of the Nazis and Elites. This so called “communist” party, calls itself nationalist in order to win the bourgeoisie and the dominant anti popular regime in their brutal commitments.
This party argues to “ drive away the bosses from the communist movement”. We ask them: Please first of all, drive nationalism away from your “fundamental thesis” and your rank-and-file, then, it will be reasonable to claim driving away the bosses. Then it might be possible to argue “driving away the capitalists” fromRomania. We stress on “might be possible”, because, this so called “communist party” has other important deviations to be rectified in order to pave the way to make it possible to have a successful proletarian movement, leading to revolution. This “Thesis” blames “New Aristocracy” as an obstacle for proletarians. But, the proletarians will blame the writers of the thesis for their eclictic stands, the stands which, combines opportunism of trotskytes with Mao Tse Tungs shining contribution. We will come to this point again later. The “Fundamental thesis” ‘s analysis of the class nature of Romanian dominant class under ceausescu’s rule is correct. It analysis the dominant class as “new bourgeoisie”. But “thesis” does not determine and explore it more than calling it a “new Bourgeoisie” and does not identify it as state-capitalism. Too the “thesis” does not differentiate between pre and post ceausescu’s bourgeoisie except calling “New bourgeioise of the Era of Ceausescu and Post Ceausescu”.
Post Ceausescu is a Market-capitalist one, whilst pre-ceausescu one was a state-capitalist one.
The “thesis” talks on “pluralistic socialism”. Recalling Nationalism of the “thesis”, this “pluralistic” and its essence appears as “Social democracy” rather than socialism. Those whom formulate “pluralistic socialism”, they indeed pave the way for bourgeoisie. The basic question raises from: Pluralism to whom?
Is not this the pluralism of within a bourgeiois agenda and whole bourgeois class? Other wise, proletariat is a unity which can not be pluralized within itself? Can any reason claim that some one may have to put the agenda of pluralism with him/her self? Then, the class to only is putting the agenda of pluralism with another class. So, the basic idea of the “pluralism” of the “thesis” is: A pluralism with non-proletarian opponents. This is anti Marxist, and this is opportunism that leads to revisionism and betrayal of socialism.
So, “ establishing pluralistic socialism” of the So called “communist party” of Romanian revisionist is a “new” version of trotskytes whom blamed stalin’s rule as non-pluralistic!
True! Stalin never was the man to tolerate Trotsky and trotskyist revisionism. Now, come and see the die hard defenders of “pluralistic socialism” in this “Communist” party!
According to genuine Marxism, Planned Economy under workers rule constitutes the genuine socialist state. In former revisionist “east bloc”, competition among state enterprises existed. So, profit, as an axis ruled over competition. The revisionist “thesis” , here too talks about establishing “competitive planned economy”. This is the repetition of a revisionist management. So, focusing on this basic point, there is no major and basic difference between former revisionist “Planned Economy” of competiting state-owned enterprises, and this of revisionist “Competitive Planned Economy”. If a genuine Planned Economy is established, it will serve for people, and not for profit. So, no room remains for a fierce process of competition between enterprises. If the economy is planned, state-owned and under rule of workers, there is no room for profit to function as an axis. Then a genuine socialist state dismisses the fake “competitioin”. The fake “THESES” OF THESE “COMMUNISTS”, CENTERING AND FOCUSING ON SO CALLED COMPETITIVE PLANNED ECONOMY, ARE REALLY THE GUN OF THE POOR! WE TRULY CALL IT: A GUN AGAINST THE POOR!
The “thesis” states a patriotism trending towards a chauvinist stand, while talking about annexation of Bessarabians and other separated countries to form a Great Romania. It claims demand of struggling “ for the security of Romanian spirit”, “ for the Great Romania”. These stuff all are a true reflection of These “communists” s Nationalist non-communist stand. Instead of arguing for proletarian spirit, they argue for Romanian spirit! Such is the out come of paralleling and equating Nationalism with Communism.!
Let us read the Last points of the “Thesis”:
“Communist Party (ml) ofRomaniawill proclaim the country non-integrated and non-align into the globalization capitalist structures and will promote the solidarity between all popular forces which fight for social and national freedom from all over the world, united under the flag of Permanent Revolution, in the Marxist-Leninist way: Trotsky-Mao-Che Guevara.”
The above part, clearly proves that: this party has an eclectic stand. This is only a miserable line which forgets the history of the communist movement. It mixes Trotskyism with Marxism-Leninism. It compromises Mao- The great Leader of the proletariat- with Trotsky-The traitor- to world proletariat. How can some one believe such a fake and farce! This “thesis” is really a ridiculous and childish document, worthing nothing but drawing line for no thing! How is it possible to compromise Mao with the enemies of the working class? Chairman Mao Tse Tung had always denounced Trotsky and Trotskyites. Lenin the great had denounced Trotsky’s so called “Permanent Revolution” as early as before first world war! That “theory” is a bankrupt sophistication of petit bourgeois influenced intellectualization of workers class struggle. That is a degenerated “Marxism” at the hand of a vacillating intellectual, which remained a Menshvik to the end. That is a Menshevik distortion of Marxism. How the so called “Communist (ml) party ofRomania” dares to unify Mao with Trotsky? How do Romanian “Communists” whom bring out “Marxist –Leninist Fundamentalist Thesis” forget the ABC of Marxism-Leninism? They are not Marxists, so they naturally have “forgotten” every thing. They have only stated and formulated the fake which they could imagine, and they have no scientific and historical proof. By formulating the “thesis” they have proven that: they are wandering intellictualoids, whom opportunistically and parasitically are trying to denounce communism. There is no thing common between Mao and Trotsky. Rather, Mao has always opposed and denounced Trotsky for his anti-Marxist and capitulationist stands and theorizations. While Chairman Mao talks about revolution, during Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, he means the continuation of the revolution under dictatorship of proletariat. He never meant such rubbish issues as Trotsky declared. Mao meant the version of revolution which Karl Marx had demanded. So, there is no compromise Between Trotsky and Mao. Trotsky’s “permanent revolution” is opposite to what Marx really meant using the same phrase. This degenerated theory of Menshvik Trotsky has no thing in common with Mao’s formulation of: continuing the revolution under dictatorship of proletariat, from which he meant the continuation of revolution with Cultural revolutions and waging more people’s wars. The so “Communist (ml) party ofRomania, in their superficial theorizations, have only shown their phrase mongering and have played with worlds and sentences. They make no sense! Trotsky opposed Joseph Stalin and his political contributions. Mao was a student of Stalin (as Mao him self has several times discussed this). Mao was following Stalin. Later on, Mao him self advanced Marxism-Leninism and promoted Stalin’s works, mutating the ideology of proletariat to a higher stage: Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. So, Mao is the completion and development of Stalin. Then, how can Mao be compared and brought together with renegade Trotsky?! Only amalgam and eclecticism of the so called Communist (ml) party ofRomania, is able to create such amalgam and phrasemongerings!
This party wants to hide behind some piece of left phraseology, but, it can not hide its revisionist and eclectic essence. It has an incorrect line of compromising right and wrong. It is impossible to coincide Marxism with revisionism. The leading Ideology of international proletariat, which is a scientific ideology of the proletarians, is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. This ideology opposes Trotskyism and Guevarism. So, those who want to mix the revolutionary ideology of international proletariat with those of the Mensheviks and distorted “Marxists”, are holding a wrong and null-and-void line. They are foolish militants of bourgeoisie, but mistakenly have raised the Red banner! But, they are not to raise the banner, rather, they are to throw it down.
Contrary to their slogan at the end of their “thesis”, they are willing to “War to Huts, Peace to Palace”, AND THEY ARE FALSELY CLAIMING: WAR TO PALACES, PEACE TO HUT! As long as they do not abandon their line of degeneration and eclecticism, as long as they do not abandon Trotskyism, they may not be suitable to be called revolutionaries. They, how can they be considered Communist? As long as they do not seek pardon from international proletariat from their sin of equating Trotsky with Mao, they will not be pardoned by proletariat and the oppressed people of the world. Organization of the Workers of Afghanistan strongly condemns their opportunist Menshevik line of vacillation, and asks them to: Re-study Marxism, and Abandon Revisionism.
If they do not accept our call, if they do not abandon their incorrect line of eclecticism, they will be smashed by anti-revisionist forces of the world.
Long Life Marxism-Leninism-Maoism
Down with Revisionism and Eclecticism
Organization of the workers ofAfghanistan
(Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, principally Maoist)