At
a time when the proletarian movement had the most advanced positions in its
history and challenged imperialism on every front, the struggle against modern
revisionism gained a new dimension with the stance taken by the parties and
organisations adhered to Marxism-Leninism in line with the PLA led by Enver
Hoxha. This happened immediately after Stalin's death when the Khrushchevite
clique took over the CPSU through every possible insidious method and betrayed
the party line and Marxism-Leninism. With the task of furthering the principles
of Marxism-Leninism, the historical gains of the proletarian movement and the
working class's march forward, the stance of these parties from the 1960s
onwards encouraged the formation and advancement of new M-L groups and parties
with ever increasing numbers and influence, which went through specific
processes in different countries. These M-L parties, with the line they followed
in their countries, have given particular importance to eliminating the
influence of revisionism and reformism over the workers and working masses. As a
current they have also been the defenders of the general line of the
International Communist Movement. Each party and group, within its own capacity
and understanding, has tried to advance the unity based on ideological and
theoretical principles, and develop the grounds for material and organisational
unity.
Modern revisionism, led by Gorbachev, joined together with the counter-revolutionary so-called "liberalisation" and "globalisation" campaign carried out internationally since the early 1980s by the imperialist and reactionary gang led by the US. It dropped its socialist mask and openly became an accomplice of capitalism. This was followed by the collapse of the revisionist powers. All this inflamed the attacks on the historical gains of the proletariat and Marxism-Leninism on an international scale with unprecedented dimensions.
With
the help of provocations, this wave of attacks was followed by the cowardly
stance of the leadership of the PLA who, instead of resistance and struggle,
chose to submit and accepted the defeat without a fight. This was in no way in
line with the practice of Enver Hoxha or the history and combative tradition of
the people of Albania. This stance led to the disintegration of socialist
Albania. In the face of these developments, the liberal and opportunist
tendencies which emerged in the mid-80s in many parties of the international
Marxist-Leninist movement and led to the liquidation of some fraternal parties,
took an orientation which threatened the existence and the future of the
movement. The relations between fraternal parties weakened, and uncertainties
and a chaotic situation emerged in the ranks of the international M-L movement.
Subsequently,
the M-L parties were faced with a new test in encountering the attacks and
undertaking their historical tasks. The question posed was whether they would
enter a path of new doubts and distrust with regard to the universal principles
and theses of Marxism-Leninism, abandoning their objectives and reasons for
existence with no belief in their legitimacy; or whether they would accept and
declare the fact that the betrayal which began with Khrushchevite revisionism
has created its natural consequences which this in itself has given a new
meaning and importance to their reasons for existence, legitimacy and
responsibilities. That they were ready to shoulder every responsibility in
preparing the working class for new struggles in accordance with their
historical tasks and objectives for the advancement and the future of humanity
as a whole.
The
former would inevitably pave the way to submission to the bourgeoisie, to
hopelessness and to a tendency towards liquidationism; while the latter would
indicate an orientation towards more advanced struggles with a higher level of
consciousness and organisation, renewing and strengthening the hope and
confidence of the working class in their future.
The
1992 Congress of the Brazilian Party created the grounds for openly expressing
the liberal-opportunist tendency within the international M-L movement. The open
stance taken against the opportunist tendency at this Congress, and the call for
an international meeting in Dominican Republic fuelled the revolutionary
tendency in our movement to reorganise itself.
The
March 1993 meeting in Dominican Republic was called by six fraternal parties and
attended by nine. It was an evidence of the tendency within the M-L movement
towards uniting their forces and taking their responsibilities to fulfil their
historical tasks for the working class and the oppressed working masses. This
meeting marked the first step in declaring the fight against the reformist
tendency within the movement, and it was followed by other meetings.
Another
meeting was held later that year in Europe. It was attended by 13 parties which
discussed international developments and the state of the Communist Movement and
declared their adherence to their ideological, theoretical and historical
foundations. It decided to organise the next meeting on the subject of the
organisational platform of international M-L movement, and set up a preparatory
committee to enable participation in line with its objectives.
The
1994 Quito Meeting, attended by 15 parties and organisations, expressed in its
final declaration the common determination not to abandon "our
effort and work until we fulfil our historical mission" and to "keep
high the flag of Marxism-Leninism, to fight for its implementation, and to turn
our parties and organisations into political, social and organisational
alternatives nationally and internationally". It also took the minimum
organisational steps to strengthen the ideological, political and organisational
bases of the International Communist Movement and to meet its needs: it decided
to establish certain instruments and organs, among which were the
institutionalisation of the conferences, the setting up of the Co-ordinating
Committee, and the publication of an international journal.
With
its decisions and the stance it represented, the Quito Meeting has marked a
significant turning point in terms of our M-L movement regrouping itself and
shouldering its historical tasks and responsibilities with a higher level of
consciousness.
In
this way, international M-L movement has entered a more advanced path since
1994, namely the period of "Conferences". With the fight the movement
has waged since 1991, this step has ensured the failure of the distorting / time
consuming attempts of the liberal-opportunist tendency which tried to drag the
movement on to its platform of petit-bourgeois socialism. With its ideological
and theoretical platform as well as the minimum organisational steps it has
taken, the M-L movement has become the only current which could shoulder the
responsibility of the working class. This was at a time when the workers of
advanced countries, the most conscious and experienced sections of the working
class, have begun to wage the most advanced struggles of the last 20-30 years.
Particularly in 1995, the workers of France inflicted the first serious blow
against the attacks and the demagogic campaign of imperialist bourgeoisie. This
led to a new mobilisation of the struggles of the workers in many underdeveloped
and dependent countries.
Our
Conferences since Quito
The
M-L movement has held its conferences regularly with the set framework. In line
with the tasks set forth in the general conferences; regional conferences,
international youth gatherings and trade union conferences have also been held.
The Conference has re-established links with some of those fraternal parties who
had lost contact with the M-L movement. The journal has begun to be published in
more countries. The expression of the relations between fraternal parties on the
Conference platform the responsibilities of which have already been set, has
improved mutual trust and the level of utilisation of experiences. The agenda of
our conferences has evolved towards discussions on the practical problems of
class struggle and towards establishing an international tactical line from
these discussions.
The
steps taken and the work done have strengthened and given courage to the
struggle of our individual parties. While the currents which distanced
themselves from Marxism-Leninism have entered a process of disintegration and
dissolution on the platforms of bourgeois parties, our fraternal parties have
gained new positions in the struggle. These positions have improved their
self-confidence and have given strength and prestige to our M-L movement as a
whole. In other words, on one hand, the creation of the minimum organs and
instruments of our movement since the Quito meeting has mobilised and encouraged
the struggle of our individual fraternal parties, and on the other, the gains
achieved by our fraternal parties in their own countries have strengthened the
foundations of our M-L movement. Present developments consolidate
internationally the legitimacy of our movement as a current which has historical
roots and a history of struggle, and give our parties the right to carry on
their path with more courage and confidence.
However,
if we take into consideration the developments in the international workers'
movement; the experiences, requirements and tasks derived from these
developments; the shortcomings which emerge in the functioning of the existing
organs of our ML movement -as was stated at the Venezuela Conference; it is true
that we are faced with the question of expanding the scope of our work and of
strengthening the ideological, political and organisational bases of our unity,
and that each party is concerned about this question.
There
is no doubt that the problems we are facing today are not a result of
retrogression or disintegration. On the contrary, they are a result of
historically significant developments that have been taking place
internationally in the working class movement (particularly since 1995). They
are a result of a progress and development, of our M-L movement becoming more
important and encountering with more concrete tasks and responsibilities.
This is because during this period, although the workers' struggle experienced some kind of stagnation from time to time; in general, some concrete signs of a flow, of fundamental changes and renovation have emerged. Our parties have tried to utilise fully the possibilities created by the expanding struggle and organisation as a result of these developments. The experiences they have gained from the struggles in their own countries have also contributed to the International Communist Movement in general, consolidating and developing the previously taken steps.
In other words, the unity that emerged in 1994 on the basis of the defence of the universal principles of Marxism-Leninism against the imperialist-revisionist demagogic campaign and against their liberal opportunist reflections in our ranks, is at present faced with the question of progress towards the ideological, political and organisational problems of the international workers' movement.
It
is for this reason that one of the main preconditions for our development and
for the accomplishment of our historical tasks and responsibilities for the
emancipation of humanity is to study the general conclusions of the struggles
that have taken place since 1995 for the international workers' movement
-without overlooking the different forms and characteristics they have taken in
different countries. This is also necessary for our fraternal parties and our
M-L movement to become more aware of the process they are going through, to
utilise and evaluate their own experiences with a wider perspective, and to
concentrate their energy on the most vital problems.
Developments
in class struggle since 1995 and some conclusions
The
events and the facts of the present period have shown that since 1991 not only
in former socialist countries and people's democracies but in the imperialist
system as a whole, a period of many sided disintegration, contradiction and
sharpening has begun. We witness this in the relations between imperialist
countries; between the monopolies; between the imperialist and dependent,
colonial and semi-colonial countries; between the capitalist bourgeoisie and
ruling classes on one hand and the working class and popular masses on the
other; shortly in class relations as a whole. In connection with this, the
actions which spread in 1995 against the attacks of the imperialist bourgeoisie
and reactionary forces led to significant developments both for our parties and
for the international communist movement:
Ideologically,
vivid developments in class struggle and their manifestations have become
concrete proofs which consolidate the theoretical foundations of
Marxism-Leninism. Ideological-theoretical struggle has expanded its sphere of
influence, joining together with the concrete developments emerging as a result
of the practical movement and according to its requirements. As a result of
these developments, old revisionist parties have begun to make an effort to
renew their platforms. The pressure from the working class movement has fuelled
internal contradictions in the ranks of these parties, and in some countries it
has led to the emergence of "left" fractions at different levels. In
some parties which broke away from the ranks of M-L movement there has emerged
-even though ambiguously- a tendency to break away from and to struggle against
the liberal opportunist line. The orientation of popular masses in former
socialist countries towards the struggle against unbridled capitalist
exploitation and plunder has upset the illusions spread by the revisionist
demagogy. Thus, internationally, with more direct and clear manifestation of
class contradictions, the demagogic bases of revisionism which have become a
part of the imperialist campaign claiming the end of the historical
revolutionary role of the working class, have weakened.
Politically,
as a natural result of the sharpening imperialist contradictions, we see a
rising struggle against the many-sided attacks on the rights achieved by the
working masses in almost every country. In the majority of underdeveloped
countries as well as in capitalist countries the ruling classes have conducted
these attacks through "national" coalitions consisting of bourgeois
"left" parties such as social democrats and socialists as well as
"communist" parties. As a result of this, the role of bourgeois left
parties as an extinguisher of the workers' struggles has further weakened. The
workers and working people in general have begun to distance themselves from
these parties and to orientate towards new alternatives.
The
pressure of these developments has begun to shake the trade union bureaucracy
and strengthen the tendency among trade unionists towards a struggle against the
bureaucracy. It also led to a tendency within the middle and lower sections of
trade unionists towards a break away from left parties such as ex-revisionists,
social democrats, etc. Within the trade union movement, the tendency towards
solidarity and co-operation has improved on an international scale. This is a
tendency that the Trotskyist and ex-revisionist currents are trying to take
under their control by trying to reorganise.
The
working classes of advanced countries, with the ability of organisation and
consciousness that they have gained from their historical experiences, have
re-orientated themselves towards strikes, general strikes, acts of resistance
and demonstrations as different forms of struggle, in other words, towards
"schools of struggle", which the bourgeoisie is trying to erase from
their minds. This has inspired and given courage to the struggle of the workers
in other countries with a relatively poor history of struggle. Especially the
events that took or still are taking place in many underdeveloped countries such
as Ecuador and Burkina Faso have proved that the working class in these
countries can play a more solid vanguard role in social struggle. The
objective/material bases for solidarity and co-operation between the working
class of advanced countries and those of underdeveloped countries have widened
as never before and gained a mutually strengthening role. In this way, the
influence of "anti-imperialist, petit bourgeois revolutionary"
currents, the majority of which have moved towards reformism in underdeveloped
countries, has gradually weakened, and the working class has proved to be the
most consistent defender of anti-imperialist demands in these struggles.
As
a result and an element of all these struggles, the most significant phenomenon
which has a determining character for the workers' movement and its future is
the fact that in many countries where the working class has orientated towards
struggle at this or that level, especially in advanced capitalist countries,
there has emerged, out of the struggle, a new advanced section of workers, who
are in the forefront of the movement, and who, with their practical actions,
distance themselves from ex-revisionist or bourgeois left parties. Their number
and influence vary in accordance with conditions and from action to action, and
they do not yet have any ideological-political unity in the real sense. It is
obvious that, under the present circumstances, the main reason for the emergence
of this advanced section of workers, is their stance in daily struggles against
capitalism and the positions they have gained through their experiences in the
struggle. What proves the importance of the role of these sections in class
struggle is the capacity they have shown since 1995 in the struggles in advanced
countries like France, Germany, the USA, Russia and in many underdeveloped
countries in unifying some sectors of the working class. These sections also
play a significant role in the trade union movement, and our fraternal parties
in different countries come face to face with them in different forms. Under the
present circumstances, the question of organising these advanced sections -going
through different processes particular to each country- in the revolutionary
working class party is the main condition for re-uniting the workers' movement
around a revolutionary line, advancing its struggle and overcoming the
destruction caused by revisionism. In the forthcoming period, it will also be
the focal point of the fight against the attempts of the out-of-the-class
"left" currents at reorganising themselves and dividing the movement.
Of course, at present, this question manifests itself under particular
conditions in which the working class unity in action and in practice and their
experiences have a special meaning. For this reason, the approach of our parties
and our M-L movement to this question has a particular importance in terms of
facilitating the advanced workers taking their future into their own hands with
courage and confidence. Every success in this field will serve the unity of the
M-L movement also in the form of international unity of the workers’ movement.
It will help them to head towards revolution and socialism, and enrich their
agenda with the experiences of this struggle.
For
this reason the M-L Movement must concentrate all its attention and effort on
this vital question with which our parties have been engaged for some time. It
must expand its agenda to the daily practical, political and organisational
problems of the struggle against the capitalist-bourgeoisie and imperialism.
Also, without ignoring the historical and social characteristics of every
country, it must develop a style of work which will help develop a common
approach to common problems, and it must form the necessary mechanisms to do
that.
What does this mean?
First
of all, it means bringing onto the agenda of our Conference the problems in
every country, the forms of struggle and organisation that have emerged, the
tactics of political and trade union struggle, and the negative or positive
experiences gained from them. It means drawing the maximum common results on the
basis of which each individual fraternal party could utilise its own experiences
with a wider perspective. Subsequently it means having a lively accumulation of
experiences which will serve the unification of
the international workers' movement around a common line, and deepening
and strengthening our ideological-theoretical discussion and unity on the
concrete tasks of the movement.
Secondly,
it means that we must evaluate and make a self-criticism of our journal in order
to make it an instrument of the ideological-theoretical struggle which will
serve the common objectives and concrete tasks we have set forth. It means that
the call to improve the journal must be considered as an essential task and
responsibility rather than a "recommendation".
Thirdly,
it means that we must make the "Regional Conferences" more systematic
and efficient, and renew and improve the internal functioning of the
Co-ordinating Committee and its relations with Regional Conferences and with
fraternal parties in accordance with the concrete tasks of our General
Conferences.
Fourthly,
we must get to know more closely those parties and groups which are trying to
establish links with the M-L movement, share the experience and collective
knowledge of the historical process that was gone through with them, enabling
them to claim that process as a common basis of the M-L movement, and help them
develop and participate in the Movement at a more advanced level.
We are aware that more advanced forms of organisations require a more advanced level of unity of will and action, uniting the international workers' movement around a common line. They have to correspond with the level of development of the Movement itself and the level of influence of our parties on this movement. However, on the other hand, to the extent that our Conference draws concrete and general conclusions from every development in the movement and sets itself tasks and responsibilities accordingly, it can influence and advance the movement. This is the meaning of "being in front of the movement". And our movement consists of parties which have proved, even in the hardest times, to be more courageous and responsible and ideologically and theoretically more equipped than others in order to be "in the front".