The
question of unity has always been one of the issues communists have always dealt
with and it still continues to be one. No one has openly opposed it. Moreover,
it has always been a part of the agenda in almost all bilateral or multilateral
meetings. However, its achievement has been such a slow process that it could
cause hopelessness.
Of
course, there are important steps taken in this direction. But...
It
seems to me that we need to reconsider some circumstances, some questions and
some phenomena. This is because for a long time we have been carrying on board
some shortcomings, mistakes and obstacles. As an example, have we, with some
exceptions, not confused monolithism with unity based on principles? Naturally,
it is not fair to consider everybody equally responsible in this or other
matters. A question of principle such as the defence of socialist countries
(first the Soviet Union, then China, and then Albania) has, in the course of
time, turned into a touchstone of the differentiation between communists and
revisionists. (If we look back now, it can be said that such a notion was not an
appropriate differentiation.)
What
lay behind this notion of "touchstone" was the condemnation of those
who did not affirm the criteria and positions of those who were accepted as
"touchstones" without criticism. Criticism was of a formal nature. Let
alone criticism, even thinking differently was being used against people and was
considered to be reason for a counterattack. Most of those who write in this
journal know what I am talking about. It would not be superficial or baseless to
attempt to derive lessons for today from what has been experienced. We cannot
ignore the fact that these kinds of attitudes may re-appear.
The
Marxist-Leninist movement, that is, the movement which stood against the
Krushchevite theses, had already started to lose strength before the collapse of
the so-called socialist camp and Albania (there are differences between these
two and it is necessary to analyse this question at the right time). The parties
and organisations who were hopeful to a certain extent gradually (some of them
quite fast) became ‘tailist', the most helpless variation of opportunism. Some
of them were subjected to the blows of the forces of reaction and of traitors.
Some adopted a position in the middle. The narrow, nationalist approach of the
PLA's administrators had a certain role in the occurrence of this unpleasant
situation. This approach revealed itself following the elimination of Mehmet
Shehu and the intellectual and physical collapse of Enver Hodja. We must point
out that some parties felt this situation of the PLA under the leadership of
Ramiz Alia and his followers and started to criticise (a few parties even
directed criticisms to their faces in Tiran). However, we were unable to show
the necessary skill to predict the consequences. We were unable to make a stand
against this diversion as required. We directed our criticisms inwards in order
not to allow the enemy to manipulate them (but unfortunately, the enemies were
within). Later on, however, our criticisms were used against us by the
supporters of the PLA rather than the enemies within. And it was followed by the
collapse which affected our parties and organisations on different levels. No
one can argue that this event did not have any effect on them.
Undoubtedly,
there are certain aspects that need to be analysed. In order to understand
individual events, a total evaluation is required. Let us take the example of
Spain. A party which had an conspicuous strength and prestige and which was
strengthened in the fire of struggle was easily liquidated in a few months by a
criminal conspiracy. (We must also highlight the fact that this conspiracy was
accompanied by a betrayal prepared with patience and exactitude. The leadership
of the party itself suffered from an ideological degeneration and a lack of
revolutionary awareness). When similar things were being experienced in other
parties, how could the Spanish party escape from this? (Of course, it is not
right to generalise this. Moreover, the problems in Lenin's and Stalin's party
or in Enver Hodja's and Mehmet Sehu's party, and in some other parties were more
complicated). We must realise and accept that whatever the differences and
"lines" are, the events experienced are a collective tragedy for all
communists. These are our mistakes that we, as communists, were unable to
prevent and that are being manipulated perfectly by all shades of imperialism
and reaction. Mistakes that sprang, most of the times from our weaknesses, but
always from various forms of opportunism in our parties.
Eclectism
is also one of the gravest weaknesses inhibiting the progress of our movement.
It is a conciliatory tendency which seeks for reconciliation between different
philosophical schools. From the time of V Cousyn, the founder of `eclectic
spiritism', eclectics have argued that adding different theses to existing
principles would strengthen these principles (this opportunist tune is quite
familiar!). Lenin settled accounts with the eclectics as well as others. Despite
this, it continues to be a harmful tendency that we cannot get rid of What is it
called to try to reconcile contrary ideological positions -which sometimes
reflect themselves as `nuances'- if it is not eclecticism? It also means the
same thing as trying to reconcile contrary political approaches, since every
political approach has an ideological basis. It has got nothing to do with the
ideological and theoretical struggle which is necessary to improve and
strengthen our unity. However, we must emphasize again that we must not confuse
unity, which needs to be strengthened and expanded, with pseudo monolithism, the
price of which was paid very heavily. Lenin says "The dialectic is
something concrete and revolutionary, whereas eclecticism and sophism destroy
whatever is concrete and intact in class struggle with their legerdemain." (State
and Revolution). We must take the experiences undergone very seriously in
order not to fall into a conciliatory position and not to be ridiculed. The
Quito Conference held in August 1994 stressed the necessity of a rapprochement
between our parties and organisations and of the development of unity around
certain criteria and positions. Of course, this must be done. But if it turns
into persistence in some attitudes and into a dialogue of the deaf, then all the
efforts made in this direction will have no meaning. In these circumstances, it
means eclecticism to attempt to reconcile contrary positions in the name of
continuing the dialogue in the form of the Conference of the Marxist-Leninist
Parties. Yes to the continuation of the dialogues, debates and the efforts for
unity on a common ideological basis. But this should take place without
inhibiting the progress of the conference and without sinking into quicksand.
Unfortunately
(or luckily) we have a certain experience in this matter. There is no need to go
to the `70s. In the beginning of the `80s when blows and collapses were being
experienced, many initiatives were boycotted and even sabotaged. In spite of all
the blows, we can say that, as was formulated in a Spanish proverb, "the
dead are in good health". It is also enough to remember if there was any
beneficiary of the multilateral meeting (*) held in 1991. Despite the efforts of
some parties (the usual group of parties with one exception) this meeting showed
the impossibility of progress and agreement on common issues. Participation in
the meeting was quite high, probably the highest ever. However, there were such
different views and positions that it was not possible to have even a minimum
positive dialogue. This meeting has created the opportunity for some parties to
put forward their camouflaged anti-communist views, while creating the
opportunity for some traitors, mainly those in Spain, to take a breather. It has
also witnessed the attempts of some others, who were unable to come out of the
quicksand that they were dragged into by tailism, to legitimise their
liquidation.
We
believe that we must take into consideration these experiences and take some
measures -if possible in order not to encounter the same barriers. We want to
highlight again the fact that it is definitely necessary to make efforts to
enable new forces to participate in the conference, to draw the parties who are,
for this or that reason, not in the existing process, to discuss with them and
to open the way to them. In other words, we must not let our work to be hindered
or narrowed. Nor should we have an excluding attitude towards those who do not
understand the questions or who do not approach them in the same way as we do.
We must go forward, leaving arrogance to one side.
We
want to take this process forward and find the ways and methods to do this. The
Quito Conference concentrated the discussions on this question. And it was seen
that all the participants of the conference did not have the same approach to
the question. It is not something bad. On the contrary, it can even be useful if
these differences are handled with the aim of finding a solution. What must be
avoided is the mentality of criticising without any proposals and separating
theory from practice, that is, the danger of being static in practice while
theorising things.
There
is no doubt that we have made certain progress. The conference has a minimum
organisational structure. There is a consensus about publishing the journal. We
are assertive in contacting and including other forces who claim to be Marxist-Leninist.
There is a desire not to avoid discussions and polemics in order to solve the
problems and differences (which was not the case in the past when polemics were
avoided with the worry of not being stamped in this or that way and when heads
were buried in the sand). Yes, we are making progress. But this should not cause
any extreme self-confidence and contentment with the existing situation. As
Lenin says "We must be vigilant in order not to allow small gains to tie up
our arms and must not forget about relatively long term targets without which
small gains would just mean an empty achievement" (Lenin- `Political
Sophism'-1905). We must rely on our experiences and utilise the experiences of
the discussions and of the struggle we are carrying out, and the positive or
negative experiences of the past. (It is always more attractive to see the
positive only and to ignore those who openly point to our weaknesses,
shortcomings and mistakes. But who can argue that we have no mistakes until the
contrary is proved!). Why not claim the right to make mistakes? Does our own
history not show that we have often been mistaken? But, be careful. We should
not let the fear of making mistakes paralyse us. Running after absolute truth
and an infallible, prescription would mean to say amen to an impossible prayer.
We have fallen into this grave mistake many times. The approach must be this:
The right to make mistakes, but the necessity of struggle in order to realise
and correct these mistakes.
With
such an approach, it is very important to equip ourselves against eclecticism,
which accepts a mechanical unity of heterogeneous -even contrary ideological
positions and currents, in the name of unity in the ranks of the conference.
Such an attitude is an inconsistent one which paves the way to eclecticism.
Undoubtedly, there are a lot of difficulties before us waiting to be overcome.
Moreover, we have limited forces. However, this should not be a reason for
running away from our tasks.
At the next Conference of the Marxist-Leninist Parties and
Organisations, it will be useful to clarify the issue towards which different
approaches were shown in the previous one, which was not solved theoretically
and which was passed over lightly just by voting (which is not always an
appropriate method). It is absolutely necessary to set some minimum binding
ideological criteria for the members of the conference. This would constitute a
step forward in the right direction to solve the problems. The question is quite
clear: If we leave aside bilateral work, how can one deal with the
organisational aspects of joint activities in an environment where there has
been no discussion on or formulation of some ideological criteria in force for
everybody? What kind of organisational internal functioning can be discussed in
the presence of those who not only oppose common functioning but also exercise
the things that they consider unnecessary for other members of the conference to
do jointly, and who do not even find it necessary to inform others, but only
their group?
This is not the first time this question is brought onto the agenda. It
is high time that we must have got rid of this eclectic approach.
Raul Marco, July 1995
(*)
The multilateral meeting the author is talking about is the meeting held
during the congress of PCdeB in Brasil.