A founding member of The Stalin Society was recently expelled by the Steering Committee acting as provided for by the Society's Constitution. The charges levelled against this individual member are: to have insulted the Society and various of its members, including leading comrades, by means of defamatory publications. Particular objection was taken to his charges that the Committee is now a tool of a 'Fifth Column'. And that this '..... has caused the society to degenerate into a propaganda organ for the dissemination of revisionist ideas'. Moreover, this individual accuses the present leaders and other well-known members of placing 'barriers between the Stalin Society and tens of thousands of honest potential members'.
How should we deal with this case?. I think it is worth approaching this issue in two different levels. Any individual case, no matter whose, is, I think, of no mayor significance and can be dealt according to the democratic process and the Society's own Constitution. I will, later, like to make some proposals in this respect. However, the ideological question should be dealt with first.
What kind of antagonism has developed between this one individual and the Society's leading committee? It is a line antagonism, a manifestation of the two-line struggle within the Stalin Society itself.
Therefore, in positively assessing comrade Stalin's historical role, communists and non-communists, Marxists and non-Marxists, consistent Marxists and inconsistent ones, can and do unite. The non-Marxist, the bourgeois or petty bourgeois trend of thought within the Society gives inevitable pre-eminence to Stalin's personality. This tendency centres on his personal accomplishments, his personal qualities as a leader of the state, his democratic credentials. However, the proletarian line centres on Stalin historical role as a Marxist revolutionary. This last trend of thought means to uphold him as the embodiment of the proletarian ideology, the construction of socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat.
People incline to one or the other trend in diverse degrees and proportions and at different times and occasions, this is an inevitable phenomena. Under normal conditions, this two sides of the contradiction that makes up our Stalin Society can develop in struggle and unity. These two lines exist even within the minds of every one of us and it is this very struggle the motive force that propels our society, and each member, forward in the accomplishment of its tasks. This contradiction manifests itself in various positive ways and contributes by means of debate, confrontation of ideas and even political struggle, to raise our ideological level. When the proletarian line predominates, it contributes to Bolshevize our members, cast away bourgeois illusions and prepare the ground for a further development of Marxist understanding among our ranks. And this is as it should be.
Nevertheless, here we are not dealing with the ordinary course of events in the two-line struggle. We are now dealing with a contradiction that has become antagonistic. This development is also an inevitable consequence when the two-line struggle reaches a certain degree of intensification and is not handled correctly due to our own lack of experience. Then, there is bound to be someone to let the insults and the base accusations fly and a certain degree of confusion between the rank and file is inevitable. Why?.
In confrontation with the bourgeois line Marxism asserts itself each time ever more strongly. This is a process inherent to the class struggle at the ideological level. Eventually, this is bound to drive some or other defender of the bourgeois line to sheer desperation in the face of ideological bankruptcy. Such representatives of the bourgeois line, finding themselves lacking sound arguments, will then resort to falsification, unprincipled attacks, bitter denunciations and even sabotage or wrecking. The historical experience of Trotskism, Bukharinism and Zinovievism clearly prove this fact.
The reasons for this 'derangement' can be found in the fact that our Society, upholding comrade Stalin, has advanced in its understanding of the Marxist ideology. What has driven him to such insanity is merely the fact that the Society has began to address itself to the burning issues of today and of tomorrow, thus complying with the teachings of Lenin and Stalin, with the very spirit of Marxism. In other words, Maoism has been deservedly put on the agenda. The Society has had the temerity of hearing two speakers that had a good word for Chairman Mao Tse-tung in a single year!. Is that not sufficient grounds to drive anyone to sheer insanity?.
If you think that the Society should merely be a club dedicated to appreciating the fine personal qualities of comrade Stalin, such would certainly be your case. You would want a Society that meets to discuss the burning issue of how many tanks took part in the battle of Kursk. A society dedicated to debating to death what did the great man meant when he uttered this or that famous saying in this or that occasion. You would be happy with that, if only none would for a moment consider applying such treasure chest of Marxist ideology. If only no one would attempt to comply with dialectical materialism and advance the theoretical understanding of the communists to the point of catching up with current developments. Then, god forbid, such people may be tempted to actually do something about the concrete situation, and that will certainly be subversive. At the very least, maybe a 'monstrous' Communist Party without absolute purity of essence may actually begin to coalesce!. And that unspeakable 'monstrosity' would most definitely clash with a quiet life of philosophical contemplation of comrade Stalin's moustache. Especially, when one is placidly awaiting the Lord to come down from Sinai bringing the magic formula for chemically pure communists inscribed in tablets of stone!. THE THEORETICAL VICTORY OF MAOISM DRIVES BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGUES INTO DESPAIR Therefore, let us see how the very perspective of Maoism being recognised as the 'continuation, the intensification, the deepening of Marxism-Leninism', how the mere mention of Maoism as '...the Marxism-Leninism of our era', as '...Marxism incorporating the decisive importance of the theoretical and practical developments in the proletarian revolution since the death of Comrade Stalin', could drive such a person to insanity. How did this madness manifest itself?: In the first instance, having no grounds for argument at all, why not invent them by the old stock-in-trade of falsification and deceit?. And why stop at that indeed? The merit for having debunked the actual falsification of Comrade Dimitrov by this individual belongs to the comrades of the Finsbury Communist. In their issue N§ 361 these comrades say: "DIMITROV - A TRUE BILL? "An armed uprising is not inevitably necessary; in certain conditions socialism may be attained without an armed uprising. These conditions now exist: on the one hand, a great socialist country - the Soviet Union, and on the other - democratic transformation being put through in a number of countries, which clears the way to socialism". (The Young Workers' League must be a School of Socialism, March 1946 by Georgi Dimitrov). The reference was to countries like Bulgaria that did go on from People's Republic to socialism without uprisings. The underlined part was reprinted in Communist League Compass for January 1995 with a capital I and the colon replaced with a full stop and produced as evidence that Dimitrov was 'one of the pioneers of open revisionism'". This shows how hatred of the revolutionary line can lead the bourgeois scholars that parade themselves as defenders of 'pure marxism' to the most extreme falsifications. If reality fits not with your theory, what can be so wrong with mangling a quotation?. Why not dispense with an inconvenient colon and substitute a lower case with a capital letter to make a sentence begin just where is needed?. Why not indeed?. Especially when the question is to bamboozle people and 'succeed' in portraying your pet hatreds as 'revisionists'? HOISTED BY HIS OWN PETARD However, the real issue here is not in the falsifications alone. Actually, our 'doctor in ideology' succeeds only too well in showing how little he knows of Marxism and what utter misconception he has about modern revisionism. In fact his fabricated and truncated quotation does Dimitrov no dishonour and is in no way any less Marxist that the original and complete one!. The problem with our 'ideologue' is that he confuses two very distinct things: The universal necessity of revolutionary violence and the question of the peaceful transition versus insurrection or armed struggle. Thus he proves, unforgettably, that he has not the faintest idea of what makes up Khrushchev's revisionism. He shows total ignorance of the meaning of Khrushchev's advocating peaceful transition and the parliamentary road as the GENERAL LINE of the International Communist Movement. His is the case of hearing Church bells ringing, but knowing not that they toll for him! Consider the words of this other famous 'pioneer of revisionism' writing in September 1917, a good twenty-nine years before comrade Dimitrov: "Now and only now, perhaps during only a few days or a week or two, such a government could be set up and consolidated in a perfectly peaceful way. In all probability it could secure the peaceful advance of the whole Russian revolution, and provide exceptionally good chances for great strides in the world movement towards peace and the victory of socialism. In my opinion, the Bolsheviks, who are partisans of world revolution and revolutionary methods, may and should consent to this compromise only for the sake of the revolution's peaceful development - an opportunity that is extremely rare in history and extremely valuable, an opportunity that only occurs once in a while"........."The Mensheviks and S.R.s., being the government bloc, would then agree (assuming that the compromise had been reached) to form a government wholly and exclusively responsible to the Soviets, the latter taking all power locally as well. This would constitute the 'new' condition. I think the Bolsheviks would advance no other conditions, trusting that the revolution could proceed peacefully and party strife in the Soviets would be peacefully overcome thanks to really complete freedom of propaganda and to the immediate establishment of a new democracy in the composition of the Soviets (new elections) and in their functioning". "Perhaps this is already impossible?. Perhaps. But if there is even one chance in a hundred, the attempt at realising this opportunity is still worth while". (V.I. Lenin, On Compromises, Rabochy Put N§3, September 19 (6), 1917. Signed N. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol 25, pages 305-310 - the italics are in the original). Therefore, let us consider the phrase that our 'ideologue' so indignantly and underhandedly puts in Dimitrov's mouth: 'In certain conditions socialism may be attained without an armed uprising. These conditions now exist'. This is a perfectly true statement of fact in relation to the conditions prevailing in Bulgaria at the end of the Second World War. Then, due to the defeat of Fascism, real power, the power of the gun, had passed to the socialist forces. This was due, not in small measure, to the presence of the Red Army in the neighbourhood. However, even if our 'doctor' had whittled down Dimitrov's words to make him simply say 'socialism may be attained without an armed uprising', that would still conform to Leninism. The conditional words 'may be attained' already imply the presence of certain conditions. To fit reality into his pigeon-hole of a theory, our 'ideologue' obviously expected Dimitrov to have staged an uprising for the sheer hell of it. He would have had him go through the motions of a 'true revolutionary' merely to satisfy our 'anti-revisionist' champion's own thirst for purity of essence. THE QUESTION OF PEACEFUL TRANSITION VERSUS THE REVOLUTIONARY ROAD The question of the Peaceful Transition is not new to Marxists nor a simple invention of revisionists. The question was already posed - by way of exception - by Marx himself in relation to England in the 19th Century. That was before the English state had developed into a imperialist machine of oppression and suppression of the people. This hypothesis of Marx was later rendered obsolete in relation to England after the trappings of the imperialist state were put in place there, as Lenin well noted. Let us go into the question of exceptional circumstances occurring in the present era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution. For example: At the end of the Second World War in Eastern Europe the revolution could go on 'peacefully' to socialism from its anti-fascist democratic stage, as indeed happened. Here the 'exceptional circumstances' were the temporary absence, or anyway, the impotence of the imperialist state machine. Principally, such circumstances deprived the bourgeoisie of the key element - the special detachments of armed men - that make up the backbone of its reactionary state and repressive organs. The democratic revolution won victory in China led by the Communist Party. During this revolution, the Chinese People's Liberation Army had smashed the Japanese Imperialists' and Kuomingtang armies. Such 'exceptional circumstances' permitted the Chinese people a peaceful advance to socialism. These circumstances helped the unfolding of the socialist stage of the revolution without the need for staging a special uprising merely to mark the occasion. If this does not satisfy the 'purists' who do not recognise the importance of these opportunities that Lenin himself regarded as 'extremely rare and extremely valuable', so be it. However, Marxists do recognise that the general rule is the need for revolutionary violence. That power is conquered and defended by violence - be it in democratic or in socialist revolution. That this, and only this, is the historical and universal law that brooks no exceptions. However, the possibility exists that in certain concrete and 'exceptional circumstances' the revolution may pass from one stage to another by peaceful means. However, that is only true because real power, the power of the gun, is already in the hands of the revolutionaries. Marx spoke of a peaceful development of the socialist revolution as an 'exception' applying only to England in the 19th Century. He had then in mind the absence in this country of special groups of armed men, of the trappings of the imperialist state machinery. He also had very much in mind the presence in the hands of the working masses of sufficient fists, pikes, axes, and guns. In his judgement, this overwhelming threat of force would have made it possible that immediate resistance to a seizure of power by the proletariat by the 'compromising' English ruling classes would not have materialised. Marx himself also noted that such social transformation would anyway be unthinkable 'without provoking an uprising by the slave owning classes'. Therefore, Marx never laboured under pacifist illusions. He well realised that even if by way of exceptional circumstances power could be conquered 'peacefully', it would have to be defended by force, i.e. by armed dictatorship. Was Engels then wrong in saying "The working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes"? . Not at all. Here, our good 'doctor of ideology' is comparing apples with pears attempting to sound knowledgeable!. How does the possibility of the seizure of power, of the advance to the socialist transformation by peaceful means in exceptional circumstances, impose upon the proletariat the obligation to preserve the old bourgeois state machinery?. Our 'doctor of ideology' simply indulges in a non-sequitur in quoting Lenin to support his contention that the socialist advance is impossible without staging an insurrection. He is again comparing ideological apples with practical pears. What Lenin actually says is that "The substitution of the proletarian state for the bourgeois state is impossible without a violent revolution". In what way does this statement contradict the scenario envisioned by Marx for England by way of an exception in the 19th Century. Marx foresaw the need for civil war, even after the seizure of power. He found it unthinkable that the 'slave owning classes' would reconcile themselves peacefully to the loss of their paradise. Do Lenin's words actually contradict this fact?. I don't think so. In Russia in 1917, the power of the gun had already passed to the masses of the people due to the war and the democratic revolution. Together, war and revolution, had violently overthrown the Czarist state and there was a situation of dual power. Therefore, under exceptional and rare circumstances the revolution could go over to socialism without the need for an insurrection. The contradiction is to be found solely inside the head of our 'doctor'. I think that Lenin himself has already fully answered our 'doctor's' query. Let us go now, if only briefly, into our 'doctor's' fabrications about Chairman Mao. He accuses him of being anti-Marxist because of holding that the socialist revolution could go on peacefully from the democratic anti-imperialist stage of the Chinese revolution. In the light of Lenin's own words, do not such idiotic accusations miserably fall by the wayside?. The Chinese Communist Party already controlled the gun by means of the victory of the People's Liberation Army over the armies of reaction. That was the exceptional condition!. Here too, Lenin's condition was more than amply fulfilled. Or would our 'doctor' also deny the fact that the Chinese democratic revolution was a very violent and protracted struggle lasting for decades?. Would he also deny that it succeeded in placing the gun in the hands of the working people?. Would he deny that this made it possible for them to then go on 'peacefully', under the leadership of the Communist Party, to the socialist transformation?. What was there then to prevent the Chinese revolutionaries from undertaking the 'substitution of the proletarian state for the bourgeois state'?. What stood in their way in the construction of socialism, and even to attempt, as they did, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution?. It is in this spirit of revolutionary violence, preparing the class and the proletariat and the people for this, that the Marxists, the communists, actually educate the masses. What Khrushchev's Peaceful Transition meant was to abandon this Marxist GENERAL LINE and to preach Peaceful Transition and bourgeois parliamentarianism as the GENERAL LINE for the international Communist Movement. Marxists perceive Peaceful Transition as a valuable exception, arising only in conditions such as the absence or impotence of the exploiters state machinery. They know it to be a rare event in history, an event for the sake of which '....if there is even a chance in a hundred, the attempt at realising this opportunity is still worth while'. However, Khrushchev turned this exceptional and valuable but rare possibility into a Totem upon whose altar he sacrificed every principle of Marxism. For the revisionists, the question was to educate the masses for bourgeois parliamentarianism and gross pacifism. They encouraged the proletariat and the people to crawl on their bellies seeking the goodwill of the bourgeoisie. For the sake of this bourgeois illusion they vowed not to touch a single hair of the precious state machinery of the exploiters. Communist were from now on to respect the 'democratic rules' and be voted in and out of office according to the parliamentary game. What has this idiocy in common with the peaceful development of the revolution when certain conditions are present?. What has this to do with going over to socialism when the bourgeois state machine has already been smashed or is sufficiently disabled by wars and revolutions? What the Marxist position is can be summed up with Chairman Mao Tse-tung's famous dictum: "All Communists must grasp the truth. Political Power grows out of the barrel of a gun". This is the universal truth and the GENERAL LINE of the International Communist Movement. This GENERAL LINE has nothing in common with Khrushchev's 'Peaceful Transition'. Neither corresponds in any way with the anti-Leninist ranting of the 'purists' demanding insurrections for the idle sake of their doctrinaire satisfaction. ON THE PRACTICAL QUESTION OF THE EXPULSION OF THE INDIVIDUAL CONCERNED Today, in our Annual General Meeting, this person presents himself and asks for a reconsideration of his case according to his constitutional rights. Comrades should note this very carefully. What is he clearly admitting by this very action of his?: That those 'tens of thousands of honest potential members' prevented from joining the Society by 'Fifth Columnists', failed after all to rally to his lonesome banner in his hour of need?. Therefore, having turned into a 'pillar of salt', in splendid but pitiful isolation, our hero feels compelled to seek again to rejoin the 'Fifth Columnists'. He humbly requests his readmission to the Society. Any similarity with Trotsky, Bukharin, Kamenev and Zinoviev's requests for readmission after their various separation from the Bolshevik Party, cannot be purely coincidental. We should, nevertheless, consider that the correct resolution of this antagonism must serve primarily to unite and to develop the theoretical understanding of our members. This negative incident must be turned to good account so that even the least advanced among us can derive something positive from it. I said before: This is "also an inevitable consequence when the two-line struggle reaches a certain degree of intensification and it is not handled correctly. Then, there is bound to be someone to let the insults and the base accusations fly and a certain degree of confusion between the rank and file is inevitable". Therefore, in the first instance, what we need to do is to go on in a way that would dispel any confusion among our members. That will go a long way in thwarting the objectives of the bourgeois line in raising this whole stink. OUR INFALLIBLE COMPASS ALWAYS POINTING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION However, this person is not merely speaking for himself. He does represent a trend of thought. Unfortunately, and because of the constrains of time, today we can but merely skim the surface of his innumerable errors and distortions. Also, these errors and distortions would not cease to exist even if we were to put this person to death, let alone just expel him without further ado. I have said before that persons such as this individual are very valuable. We should learn to use them as teachers by negative example. For example, whenever they say that something is revisionism, it invariably turns out to be excellent Marxism. Whenever they attack a leader of the proletariat is because that leader merits then our attention. They are our infallible compass by negative example. This is especially important for me in my endeavour to raise Marxism-Leninism to the level of Maoist understanding. This is an endeavour that I consider as essential for the advancement of the revolutionary cause. Everybody knows that I hold this point of view above all others. When last September I gave my exposition on Fascism, possibly the most valuable comment for me was the one this very person made then: He said 'this is absolute revisionism'. What more can anyone ask from an infallible compass by negative example?. WE MUST PROTECT AND DEFEND OUR CADRES However, I cannot consider solely my own ideological and political interests. There are other people involved. The behaviour of this individual has surely exceeded the bounds of comradely behaviour and respect due to all members of the society. Moreover, the leading Committee has correctly conducted the affairs of the society and fully deserves our confidence and the endorsement of their decisions. I understand that some members feel they cannot longer work with this individual, and such feelings also merit consideration and support. Especially since among the most affected comrades are also the most involved and hard working members of the Society. We must protect our cadres. This is a sound principle of self-preservation to which the Society should always adhere. Therefore I am, however reluctantly, for endorsing the expulsion of this individual and approving in total the policy of the Committee. Simultaneously, and while appealing to our long suffering and ill-treated cadres to display some more of their generous revolutionary self-sacrifice, if only for a short additional time, I am also in favour of the Society taking its time to reconsider this expulsion. There is too much valuable teaching material by negative example to let this pass just as a case of a single individual. We should begin by condemning the sickness affecting the individual concerned. We should pass a resolution condemning his views as totally anti-Marxist and anti-Stalin and ask him to recant in full. It would not be at all fair not to give him sufficient time to do it according to his own present and future understanding. By applying for reconsideration, he has taken a valuable first step. We should match this generously. Besides, an expulsion by itself would generate sentimental sympathy and political capital for him. That would not be only unhelpful for the Society. In my opinion, he stands in no need for sympathy in his current 'unwell' situation, and neither does he deserve any. Here we must attempt to apply the Maoist principle of 'curing the sickness to save the patient'. Whether this particular patient can in fact be saved, is also besides the point since the individual case is only of concern to himself and his friends. The question for us, for the proletariat and the revolution, is to derive lessons and promote a positive and concrete debate furthering our tasks. Lenin said: "While it does not lead into anarchy and splits, while it takes place within a common framework accepted by all comrades and members of the Party, the struggle of tendencies is both inevitable and necessary".(1) This 'comrade' claims he has a mind to create a 'pure party' without any revisionist or opportunist tendencies, certainly not one of 'Olaechea's monstrosities'. However, his own opportunism has already exceeded the commonly accepted framework agreed by all comrades in the Stalin Society. He must now withdraw his charges and acknowledge his fabrications if he wants to be able to rejoin our own modest 'monstrosity'. If he does, his application for reconsideration can then begin to be studied. In this respect I would like to propose the following: We should contemplate giving him a year of probation during which this individual would be obliged to personally put forward his points of view and receive the comments and criticisms of the members of the society. At the end of this year, he may apply again for readmission. In the mean time, he shall not be allowed to address the Society in any other issue than those relating to his erroneous views. In synthesis, my proposals boil down to the following: First, we should approve the Committee's actions during the past year in full, including endorsing the expulsion of this individual. Second, condemn the views and behaviour of this individual as anti-Marxist and non-comradely. Request a full and immediate apology and the eventual recantation of his theoretical errors when he has had time to study their refutation. Third, suspend the expulsion for one year, allowing the individual to attend meetings of the Society as a member of the public. During this year he should be allowed to put his views forward only in relation to the questions arising from his expulsion and his views condemned by the Society. At the end of the year, in the next Annual General Meeting, we shall then proceed to reconsider again his petition. By that time we would all have had the opportunity to study in full this harmful deviation and come to a unanimous conclusion. In the mean time, I fully recommend all members to study all the literature this individual regularly churns out. It is indeed excellent material by negative example. Adolfo Olaechea (1) V.I. Lenin, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, Selected Works, page 15 ??