Document
Maoism - Lives,
Fights, Wins and Keeps Winning!
By the Communist Party of Turkey (Marxist-Leninist) [TKP (ML)]
The following
article was first published in 1997 in the September 1-15 and 16-30
issues of Halkin Gunlugu, the newspaper of the Communist
Party of Turkey (Marxist-Leninist) [TKP (ML)].
On the 9th of September 1976 we physically lost Mao
Tse-tung. However, Maoism still lives and fights as the leader of
the proletariat and oppressed people in the world. To commemorate
Mao means to defend and apply Maoism, which is a principle for each
Maoist, otherwise one cannot be a communist and it is not possible
to achieve victory.
After Mao’s death, the problems of the proletarian
revolutionary movement in the world, the international communist
movement and the revolutionary movement’s position have shown us
the importance of Mao’s leadership. Those who criticised Mao after
his death, such as Enver Hoxha (who never spoke a word of criticism
while Mao was still alive), actually saluted Khrushchev. History
shows us their true nature and also the importance of the leadership
of Maoism.
Maoism is against imperialism, its puppets and every
type of reactionary in the world; in the struggle for communism
it represents the highest stage. Developments in the world confirm
the scientific character of Maoism. We lost our socialist countries,
which in itself confirms the scientific character of Maoism - that
socialism is a struggle between two roads and two classes, and that
it is not clear which class is going to win in the period of socialism.
Because of this, Maoism is the flag of the international proletariat
in the struggle for communism. The Cultural Revolution is the starting
point in the international struggle for communism and in determining
whether communism is actually being defended. Although the forms
are different in each country, the essence is the same. Already
there is a generation of communists who have struggled against revisionism
and opportunism by grasping and wielding this scientific method
of Maoism.
After all this, it is clear to anyone who wants to
grasp it, both before and after the seizure of power, that it is
necessary to continue the revolution under the dictatorship of the
proletariat. Those who defend the theory that there are no classes
and no bourgeoisie under socialism are bankrupt. It has been seen
that even socialist ownership of the productive forces has not solved
the problem of who is going to win. During the whole period of socialism,
which is the struggle from capitalism through to communism, there
is the basis for capitalism to be restored, even though there is
proletarian power. The bourgeoisie and the basis for its regeneration
continue to exist. Under socialism, even though the relations of
public ownership have been greatly advanced, because of the existence
of the party and the state the relations of production cannot be
completely solved until communism is achieved world-wide. As long
as the party and the state control public ownership, this is still
a long way from real public ownership. Whatever our desires, this
is the unavoidable reality.
The new bourgeoisie under socialism are mainly concentrated
in the party and state and gain their strength from the contradictions
of socialism. The new bourgeois bureaucrats such as Khrushchev,
who hide behind socialist masks, show us this reality.
Now that everyone can see the danger of capitalist
restoration and the theory of “no bourgeoisie under socialism” is
bankrupt, it is clear that the main danger comes from the newly
formed bourgeoisie in the party and the state. To sum up, the state
is an instrument of one class over another. This is the case even
during socialism and under proletarian power. Unfortunately, the
“classless socialism” theory denies the scientific Leninist theory
about the state by saying that the proletarian state’s task is merely
to defend against the imperialists and outside attacks against the
socialist country. It is true that the proletarian state defends
the socialist country against imperialist invasion, but mainly its
task is to solve all the contradictions in socialist society, in
particular the antagonistic ones, although the forms and methods
vary. Because of this, proletarian power is an instrument to continue
the proletarian revolution. Under the power of the new bourgeoisie,
who get their strength from the seeds of capitalism within socialism,
there would be a U-turn on the path towards communism. Also there
is the danger from the old bourgeoisie who have been overthrown
but still exist.
The only guarantee that the power of the oppressed
people will be used for communism is the Maoist line. Under socialism,
“from each according to their work” is still a kind of bourgeois
economy, and the transition to “to each according to their needs”
and the withering away of the state require proletarian power and
the Maoist line. It is then possible to involve and get the right
of control for oppressed people directly. Like other problems, the
state and bourgeois right is a result of the nature of socialism
as a transitional society. Under socialism, we must not delay the
tasks of eliminating class society and placing the state in the
museum of antiquities until we reach the stage of “from each according
to their ability, to each according to their needs.” We cannot leave
this aside and say it is not a task for the present. Has not the
leadership of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution shown us
this? We have nothing to say to the bourgeoisie who do not want
to see this. The funeral of the so-called “socialists” has already
buried the social-imperialists, social-fascists and bourgeois democrats.
What can we say except “God help them!” We understand the revisionist
line against Maoism, but we cannot understand revolutionaries and
democrats who wallow in a revisionist ideological situation – and
we accept our task to liberate them from this. But they themselves
have to accept the treatment. As Marx pointed out, nobody can help
those who refuse to learn from their experiences and mistakes.
To grasp the rudiments of the scientific method and
understand reality it is first necessary to toss aside indecision
and prejudice. A picture of the proletarian science demonstrates
this to us. Under proletarian leadership, the proletarian power
still contains the leadership-led contradiction between the party
and the masses. If we want to use the proletarian power as an instrument
to advance to communism, then the Maoist ideological and political
line is indisputably needed. The party and the proletarian power
are a result of the old division of labour. Although the party represents
the interests of the proletariat and the labouring people, and plays
a decisive role as the vehicle in leading the masses to seize power,
there is still the leadership-led contradiction between the party
and the state on the one hand and the broad masses of people on
the other. The contradictions between mental and manual labour,
between leadership and led, and between the town and countryside
form the reality of socialism as a transitional society for the
entire period between capitalism and communism. These contradictions
are the result not of chance, but of the economic and social base.
This is also the basis of alienation. Even the proletarian power
has a bourgeois side to it because of this. During the revolutionary
transformation of the economic, political and cultural arenas, the
Maoist ideological and political line is important and necessary
to transform this bourgeois side.
The Cultural Revolution is our flag in our struggle
against all the kinds of bourgeoisie. With the outlook of the Cultural
Revolution, it is possible to lead the people in the struggle against
the bourgeoisie and their bureaucracy, to lead the masses to supervise
the party and state, to enable people to discuss and organise themselves
under the leadership of the vanguard, to create a lively political
and ideological atmosphere in which to grasp and understand experience
under Maoist leadership, and to create great initiative. To be a
vanguard leadership requires a science that enables people to see
the correct way forward. With the outlook of the Cultural Revolution,
the party and state, which are remnants of class society, can serve
the broad masses. Bureaucracy chokes people’s initiative, but the
proletarian vanguard is a lever to break the chains. The role of
leading people is not to issue orders but to bring together people’s
struggles to achieve the goal.
With the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and
Maoism:
A: Socialism, as a transitional society, showed that
class struggle, the struggle between the two roads and the political,
economic and social struggle needed the Great Proletarian Cultural
Revolution.
B: Socialism showed us the role of the party and state
and the dangers associated with them, and it showed the importance
of ideological and political line and the necessity of the vanguard
for revolutionary transformation in practice.
C: Maoists emphasise the masses’ role in making revolution
and the role of the vanguard, and they fight against the mistakes
of those who see the masses’ role only in production and who see
themselves as experts in politics and economics.
D: The principle and the essence of dialectical materialism
stands against those who only have a mechanical grasp of the relationship
between consciousness and matter, the transformation of matter into
consciousness and of consciousness into matter. Because of this,
Maoism is against those who only grasp in a vulgar materialist way
the relationship between the superstructure and the economic base
and between economics and politics. It criticises the line of “classless
socialism” and of the monolithic party and society. It has explained
in practice the causes of the contradictions between the vanguard
and the masses, between mental and manual labour, and between urban
and rural, which are the bourgeois laws and problems operating in
society.
E: In his works “On the Ten Great Relationships” and
“A Critique of Soviet Economics”, Mao criticises and exposes in
practice the revisionists who do not understand the relationship
between heavy industry, agriculture and light industry, between
central planning and local initiative, and the importance of the
role of the vanguard in leading the broad masses.
In short, with Maoism, in the fields of economics,
philosophy and scientific socialism, our science has reached a qualitatively
higher stage. Mao neither tailed behind the masses nor stood in
front of them barking orders; neither did he deny the role of the
vanguard like a liberal, nor was he a bureaucrat issuing orders;
he was not for vulgar central planning, nor did he defend free-market
economics, which denies the role of the central united leadership.
He was a concrete example of the dialectical relationship between
centralisation and decentralisation. He was radically critical of
bureaucratic centralisation and anarcho-trade-unionism. He saw the
complex political, social and economic aspects of socialism. When
he mentioned the necessity for heavy industry, he did not forget
about the need for light industry also. This line did not
cause chaos in China, with its population of over one billion people.
It is only with a Maoist line that it is possible to lead people
to participate in production and for the masses of labourers to
actively participate in leading society forward and to fully supervise
the party and state.
Mao’s line towards the People’s Army was that it should
be a dynamic army that participates in production and carries out
revolutionary tasks, not a bureaucratic army that is indifferent
to the interests of the people. He knew that an army was a necessity,
but not the aim. Mao’s leadership did not deny the need for an army
yet also organised the masses into people’s militias.
We Salute Maoism under the Leadership of the Great Proletarian
Cultural Revolution!
Each democracy is a class power. Each power is a democracy.
There is no democracy that is above class power. This means that
every state is an instrument of dictatorship against the other classes,
apart from the class it represents. For us, it is clear who the
proletarian democracy represents, whom it dictates to and what its
aim is. It is a democracy for the labourers. Under Mao’s leadership,
the aim is to seize power, to supervise and guarantee the power
and to continue to make revolution, and it is a total dictatorship
over the bourgeoisie. It is a weapon to achieve the final goal of
communism. It is most important who controls the organs of power
in the period of socialism, which is a means of getting to communism.
It is very important to have Maoist leadership to transform society
towards communism and to represent the interests and rights of the
people. If opportunism and revisionism control and lead the power,
they will turn things back and restore capitalism. It is our aim
to establish the proletarian power, but it will not happen by itself
without a communist vanguard. Those who pit the vanguard and the
masses against each other deny Maoist vanguard leadership and use
a vulgar materialist philosophy and political economic method. The
so-called “left” liberals, who try to send an invoice to our science
for the crimes of the “new” bourgeoisie who developed out of the
former socialist countries, are vulgar crooks. They attack especially
the role of the communist party under the dictatorship of the proletariat,
which we cannot abandon. Their world outlook prevents them from
seeing the contradictions in socialist society, which is a transitional
period between capitalism and communism. Because of their spontaneous
outlook, they draw up a profit-and-loss account for our science
and even reach the point of those who say, “communism is dead and
defeated”. Nonetheless, the communists have of course made mistakes.
When Mao explained the contradictions in socialist
society he drew lessons from the mistakes of socialists and others
on this question. He showed that the Great Proletarian Cultural
Revolution was the way to continue the revolution until communism.
He explained the basis for the development of the “new” bourgeoisie
under socialism. He showed how habits, ideas and customs have caused
the masses to degenerate, and he showed that the solution was to
persist in carrying out the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution,
because it has been seen that the bourgeoisie can exist and exercise
control from within the organs of the proletarian power. Because
of that, it is necessary to revolutionise the whole sphere of the
superstructure in the state power and society. Can we make revolution
without a party? The importance of the role of the vanguard is demonstrated
in leading the people to make revolution with the correct line.
The liberal “left” use the mistakes and weaknesses of the communists
(such as not understanding well enough the role of the masses or
the dialectical materialist relationship between the vanguard and
the masses) to exaggerate the masses’ role and close their eyes
to and turn their back on the vanguard role. In a word, the revolution
cannot go forward with this theory because it focuses on the masses
only. The initiative of the revolutionary masses needs a vanguard
and is not opposed to it. The synthesis that needs to be reached
is the unity of the communist vanguard and the masses, not pitting
the one against the other.
The form is important but cannot be put above the essence.
Did not Khrushchev make use of the people’s ownership in the Soviet
form? Yes, the form is important, but the essence is the key factor.
This or that form can be used by the Khrushchev or Deng revisionists,
which means that if there is no Maoist line and vanguard leadership,
the people’s interests cannot be represented and guaranteed by the
form alone.
In the name of the struggle against bureaucracy, you
cannot deny the vanguard role; otherwise, it would be an operation
in giving power to the bourgeoisie.
The so-called liberal “left” use the Paris Commune
example, but they use its weaknesses that need to be overcome. One
of these weaknesses was that there was not a communist vanguard.
Those who raise the historical weaknesses of the Commune and enshrine
them as theory are inviting us into a tunnel without a light! But
Maoism is the sunlight on the road and represents our scientific
inheritance. It shows us how to defend the Paris Commune with the
people’s commune under the leadership of the party, how to exercise
power through the method of the revolutionary committee, and how
to lead people to participate in production in practice, etc.
Those who promote anarchism are mere chatterboxes who
cannot break with the system, but merely keep people tied to it
in theory and practice.
Yesterday and today, we defend the Paris Commune as
a milestone, but not like the anarchists. It is not enough today
just to be a communist, to only defend and accept the dictatorship
of the proletariat, we must at the same time be for the continuation
of the class struggle under the dictatorship of the proletariat.
It is very important to grasp, understand and apply this in practice,
such as the example of continuing the Great Proletarian Cultural
Revolution. Of course dictatorship does not only mean violence.
The form of the proletarian dictatorship and whether the bourgeoisie
are given any rights at all (such as elections, etc.) is entirely
dependent on the specific conditions. We must understand that the
differences between the examples in the Soviet Union and China,
in form but not in essence, are because of the differences in the
specific conditions.
The principle of continuing the revolution under the
dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be denied. The remnants of
capitalism under socialism are concrete phenomena, as shown by past
experience. As Mao said, where the broom does not reach, the dust
will remain; the dust does not vanish by itself.
Therefore, it is not enough merely to grasp the class
struggle, we have to accept the need for proletarian dictatorship
and carry it out in practice, from the perspective of carrying out
the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Otherwise,
the doctrine or theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat will
be distorted.
There are many people who join the communist party
and proletarian power organisationally but who get their strength
from the habits of the old society and who are not with the proletariat
ideologically. These people, especially in the socialist period,
use this to their own advantage, especially at leading levels of
the party, while still raising the red flag.
Thus, we ourselves cannot avoid using dictatorship
to halt the old and “new” bourgeoisie. For us, revolution is a right
and a duty. It is right to rebel against reactionaries. But to carry
out this right against the working people is to distort this.
There are many attacks against the Cultural Revolution.
It is very natural for the reactionaries to attack this great political
revolution under Mao’s leadership, which has scared to death even
the biggest reactionary “Kings of Hell!”
What was expected of the Cultural Revolution? Could
the Cultural Revolutionary Movement have ever avoided touching the
bourgeoisie who had taken up positions of power in the proletarian
state!? It is a revolutionary task to rebel against reactionaries,
and the Cultural Revolution has taught us how to do this.
The liberal-left and their tears support the imperialists
and their puppets who attack the Cultural Revolution for destroying
the “new” bourgeoisie by leading the revolutionary masses with Maoism.
It is no surprise for us that the new liberal-left trend swears
at the revolution and distorts the essence of the GPCR. In China,
the poor peasants, who rebelled against the big landlords and their
power, were looked down upon as rabble and a mob by their opponents.
Also, for example, during the 1996 Mayday demonstration in Istanbul,
the liberal-left trade-union leader condemned the workers’ rebellion
against the police (in the same way as in China, ideologically).
As Mao said about those who condemn the rebellion of
the masses, they think revolution is a dinner party. Of course,
in a revolutionary period, we do not say that there are no extremist
or excessive acts or that we have no task to educate people, but
any excesses there may be are not the principal factor or the essence
of the rebellion.
It is a crime not to strike at the reactionaries
but to avoid them instead. During the Cultural Revolution period,
striking down capitalist-roaders was a means, but it was not the
aim. The aim was to change the world outlook of the people, to promote
communism. Even Liu Shao-chi and Deng Xiao-Ping, who were the main
targets of the Cultural Revolution, were not killed, putting the
lie to the image of the Cultural Revolution as excessively violent
and bloodthirsty. For the communist, the relation between the aims
and the means of achieving them is a question of principle and it
must be explained to those who do not understand. We must explain
that we have and we will continue to have a class enemy and
opponents, but we do not have any individual enemy.
Because of this outlook, even within our ranks we cannot make class
struggle into an individual struggle. We will not accept anything
that is against our aims. For example, inhuman treatment of others,
torture, the destruction of the environment, financing struggle
against the oppressed people and the proletariat, the drugs trade
- all these are the tasks of the bourgeoisie.
To sum up, in order to continue their regime the exploiters
defend the reactionary pragmatic philosophy of using any means to
continue their rule. The generation of the Cultural Revolution never
said, “the party and power above all else”. They used the party
and state power for the freedom of the oppressed and poor people
and as a weapon for achieving a classless society in order to change
the world. The people’s interest is always and everywhere the guiding
principle. The communists struggled with the pragmatist philosophy
of Deng Xiao-ping, which stated, “It doesn’t matter if it is a black
cat or a white cat, as long as it catches mice.” To change the opinion
of the masses, we cannot avoid ideological struggle. We know that
in all societies the dominant culture is that of the dominant class.
The Cultural Revolution means breaking with the old habits and customs
and it is the key to achieving this.
The revisionists think that the Cultural Revolution
was absolute terror. The imperialists and their puppets claim that
the revolution was against the people. It is very important not
to let anyone mix up who is an enemy and who is a friend in the
revolutionary period, and to be able to actually defeat the enemy
it is important to have unity with our friends while struggling
over their mistakes and applying our class line. This is a question
of principle.
Using violence against the people is a crime and it
was not done in the GPCR. Any obstacle or barrier to unleashing
the revolutionary enthusiasm and initiative of the people was cleared
out of the way, and the GPCR was the most excellent example of a
people’s democracy in the history of the proletarian revolution.
The Cultural Revolution cadres were elected and supervised
and could be removed from their positions by the people. As we explained
before, overturning people is a means, not the aim. Even as applied
to the revisionists, this means changing their world outlook, re-educating
them, putting them into production, and having them supervised by
the people.
For the masses, and for people who have made mistakes,
it is very important for Maoist culture to “cure the sickness to
save the patient” and to use their mistakes as an opportunity to
educate them. For Maoists, apart from those people who cannot be
cured or helped to advance, we approach people “like a doctor”.
Does a doctor have a right to shout at a sick patient? Such a “doctor”
would not know his duty and would be stupid. What is this duty?
To discover the patient’s sickness and then to carry out the appropriate
treatment. As a matter of fact, some sectarians, who use force to
impose their authority, criticise Mao as a liberal. However, Mao
never avoided struggling over mistakes. On the contrary, Mao used
the method of unity-struggle-unity, both within the party
and in society, to struggle over mistakes to reach a higher level
of unity. The proud “high and mighty” bureaucrats couldn’t understand
why Mao trusted 95% of the population as good and honest people.
The haughty bureaucrats never care about the sources of the mistakes
and people’s real conditions. Those who think they never make mistakes
and who have a furious greed for god-like power become an enemy
of all the people and take an aggressive line against the masses.
In general, the main mistakes come from them. Lin Piao was a typical
concrete example. He organised a gangster clique supposedly to sharply
continue the Cultural Revolution against Deng Xiao-ping, but in
reality this served the Deng forces. Lin Piao was a “super-Maoist!”
with the slogan “smash and burn everything!” Lin Piao carried out
cheating and intrigues in his personal fight for power.
Using our science to solve the contradictions in the
party and society, what we must do and what we must not do is:
“Practice Marxism, not revisionism. Unite, don’t split.
Don’t intrigue and conspire but be open, honest and above-board.”
As Marx said about the character of private property,
it is always timid and cowardly because it has no soul.
On Politics
Those who do not say anything about their history and
literature cannot learn and take lessons. Didn’t “they” say that
philosophy is not as simple as Mao explained in “On Contradiction”,
“On Practice” and his other works on philosophy? The writings of
the great Maoist, Ibrahim Kaypakkaya, in the 1972 Manifesto, which
includes the Kurecik Area Report and the worker-peasant movement
articles, provide a very concrete and important example to be learnt
from.
The masses cannot be led by abstract directions. Power
can be seized only through the conscious struggle of the people
to win power. We cannot avoid leading people ourselves in the class
struggle with the correct line. Revolutionary war is a practical
example of how to achieve this. People’s war and the new democratic
revolution have a dialectical relationship to carrying out these
tasks for the new democratic power. When we say the people’s war
is not only a military task, but also an economic, political and
social task to carry out the revolution, we mean this. The relationship
between war and politics explains this reality. Revolutionary war
is a means of continuing revolutionary politics. We must leave behind
our weaknesses and deficiencies very quickly. During the preparation
of the GPCR, the slogan was raised to struggle against the “Four
Old Things”. We must learn from this and bring it into our concrete
practice. Weaknesses and difficulties are a unity of opposites with
winning and the bright future. Once we analyse these correctly,
everything can be solved. We must not be like those who only see
the problems and difficulties but do not organise a solution or
see the bright future nor like those who are too haughty and proud
to see and overcome their own weaknesses. The GPCR cannot accept
that there are problems with no solution. It is very clear for us
what we must do and what we must not do. We will now discuss this.
Facing the Attacks
The liberal attacks against the proletariat and working
people from the weapons of Kautsky and Bernstein are rotten bullets.
They can only shoot themselves with these weapons. The liberals
applaud democracy in the abstract and swear at the powerful working
people under the leadership of the proletariat, while at the same
time they shed tears for any restrictions placed on the bourgeois
classes. Today we understand better than yesterday the necessity
to continue the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat.
We know the damage that the parties of the Second International
caused.
As for their Eurocentric view that grows out of the
theory of the productive forces, which holds that the proletariat
should not try to seize power in countries where it is not the majority
of the population - they can keep this suggestion to themselves,
to put it politely! Those who explain capitalist restoration in
the former socialist countries by this Eurocentric theory are “civilised”
ignoramuses, and with this theory they are not going to see any
revolution in their lifetimes!
There are reformist evolutionaries within this system
who are examples of how not to be revolutionary, i.e., the
“new liberal left”, who make propaganda for the “New World Order”,
and who are expecting to receive warmth and support from the imperialists.
We congratulate them on their reformism! For us, line is a guide
for what we do in practice, and practice is principal. Thus, the
Leninist method means:
• The unity of theory and practice.
• That the content of actions, not
slogans, is the essence.
• That under the leadership of the party, the masses must
be prepared and aroused for revolution.
• That one must dare to learn from
experiences, mistakes and errors.
• That one must always continue
towards communism.
We stand radically opposed to the Parties of the Second
International and defend the Leninist understanding of the party,
but we are not limited to this, as we have adopted the Maoist understanding
of the party, which has opened a new door.
It is through this understanding and line that we fight
against the understanding of the party and society as “monolithic”.
Through unity, struggle and unity, struggle, persuasion and transformation,
we can represent this line within the party and the masses and through
this the struggle between the two roads and between right and wrong
lines can be grasped. It is never possible to achieve absolute total
unity within the party and society, and without struggle it is not
possible to be strong. We must understand this. Also, with our determination
and our unity of action we can co-ordinate the practice in the party
and under socialism. The party is not a federation of rulers and
landlords! The Maoist party understanding is based on unity between
the party and the masses and is a means to enable the people to
act in a vanguard way and to advance to a society where there is
no further need for a party or state.
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism Is Our Guide!
Mao Tse-tung defended the inheritance of comrades Marx,
Engels, Lenin and Stalin and under Mao’s leadership the experience
of the GPCR showed that our science had reached a new and qualitatively
higher stage. The revisionists who do not understand our proletarian
science, which is the universal basis for communism throughout the
world, distort the GPCR as if the GPCR were only relevant to China.
When Mao explained the need to make Marxism particular
to China, he indicated that we needed to wield our universal ideology
and science and apply it to our particular situation. Because of
the imbalance in this imperialist world we live in, the division
between the oppressed nations and the oppressor nations, and other
factors, the forms of the proletarian struggle in each country vary
according to the concrete conditions.
Marxism gives “concrete solutions to concrete problems”.
It is a science of action, and idealists who try to turn our science
upside-down inevitably fail because our science has already been
proven in practice.
The great Maoist and leader of the proletariat and
oppressed peoples in Turkey and Kurdistan, Ibrahim Kaypakkaya, applied
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism to our concrete situation and illuminated
our path with his red line.
Comrade Mao Tse-tung, the leader of the international
communist movement, who analysed the seizure of power in the Soviet
Union by the “new” bourgeoisie, has forged a very sharp weapon for
us. The GPCR is the summit of our science. Without this understanding
it is not possible to be a proletarian revolutionary.
“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
With this slogan from Mao Tse-tung we see that although the forms
of seizing power are different, revolutionary violence itself is
a universal necessity.
The form of revolutionary violence necessary in the
colonial and semi-colonial countries is people’s war; this is the
cornerstone of a revolutionary line. Imperialism and its puppets,
who with their theory and practice want to prevent proletarian revolution,
attack the people’s war as their main target. This fact alone shows
us very clearly the necessity of people’s war!
Through Mao’s strategy of people’s war under the leadership
of the communist party, all kinds of miracles can be achieved; this
stands opposed to those who become enslaved by and captive to the
theory of the productive forces and who believe that guns, not people,
are principal. Mao showed that under the leadership of the communist
party “people, not weapons, are decisive,” and this illuminated
our path.
As Mao said, “The East wind will prevail over the West
wind.” He explained the concrete reality of the world we live in,
as opposed to others who refused to recognise that the colonial
and semi-colonial countries are the “storm centre” of the world
revolution. Look at Peru, Turkey, The Philippines, Nepal and other
examples . . . come off it, what more proof is needed!
This Eurocentric so-called socialist understanding
which distorts the proletarian world revolutionary struggle also
means preventing socialist revolution in the imperialist/capitalist
countries.
The GPCR, in the socialist transition from capitalism
to communism, is the means to continue the revolution and the dictatorship
over the bourgeoisie, and under the Maoist vanguard leadership it
is the flag of the revolutionary masses’ line which is the basis
for the revolutionary masses’ initiative.
Those who put machines and technology in command naturally
do not want to understand Mao and refuse the line of putting revolution
in command. The Maoist line is a necessity for those who want to
march to communism. On the other hand, even for those who want socialism
but who have not yet grasped this understanding, it is a strong
possibility that they will sit on the inequalities remaining among
the people under socialism and become a “new” bourgeoisie, leading
to the restoration of capitalism. Lenin represents real Marxism
against those who defend the line of the Second International and
hide their economist face with a “Marxist” mask. Lenin’s line has
illuminated the proletarian revolution in the century of imperialism
and proletarian revolution. The Great October Revolution, which
opened the way for proletarian revolution this century, has smashed
the Second International’s revisionist productive forces theory.
This inheritance, and the GPCR, which is a qualitative leap in our
science, enable us to understand the problems of revolution deeply.
The GPCR has shown us that during the period from capitalism
to communism classes exist and thus that the class struggle needs
to continue. The class struggle does not come from outside but is
based on the realities within socialist society. Before Mao, it
was not possible to analyse these problems correctly. Knowledge
depends on social conditions, it cannot be understood in a straight-line
way. The relationship between matter and consciousness cannot and
should not be understood in a mechanical materialist way, because
in reality they are related dialectically.
The followers of the Second International perspective
take a position against Maoism (and all the lessons learnt from
socialist transformation, which has taken our science to a higher
stage), and fight it with so-called “Marxism”. Our science has developed
greatly through these experiences, but revisionism does not want
to understand this, despite reality.
Even after socialist ownership of the means of production
has been established, it is still possible to return to capitalism.
History proves it is Maoism that is correct, and not those other
views that say such a return is impossible. Who stands against the
view that capitalist restoration is possible?
History is a witness for scientific Maoism, not for
those “civilised” ignoramuses who look down prejudicially on the
revolutions in the colonial and semi-colonial countries, which are
the driving force for revolution around the world.
History has not proven correct those who say
socialism is not possible in one country but it has proven
correct the leadership of Lenin, Stalin and Mao, who have carried
out revolution successfully, and it has proven correct the science
of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
The Khrushchev coup in the Soviet Union and the other
seizures of power by his puppets in Eastern Europe, as well as other
problems in China which Mao has explained, show that:
1) Socialism itself is a transitional society, not
a stable society. Problems do not cease even after socialist transformation
and the establishment of socialist ownership relations. These two
steps, socialist transformation and the establishment of socialist
ownership relations, are very important in removing the exploiting
forces from the ownership of production. But this does not
mean that all the problems of the production relations have been
solved. There are still contradictions in the relations between
the producers, for example, between the leadership and led . . .
Therefore, although the people’s ownership is an important
step to establish, this is still far from the real control
of society (by the whole people). This is the reality of socialism,
even with these important radical steps. In socialist society, it
cannot be any other way. The old class (the bourgeoisie) who have
been smashed and the danger they pose for seizing power again can
be understood by every ordinary person, but the main dangers and
sneaky attacks come from the “new” bourgeoisie who are fed with
the contradictions within socialist society. The “new” bourgeoisie
amass in the state and the party. Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Deng
are real concrete examples of this. Now we would like to ask:
a) Which is correct? The line which claims that the
main dangers come from the “new” bourgeoisie who are on the capitalist
road? Or, the line that claims the main dangers come only from imperialist
invasion and from the old ruling class which has been overthrown?
Which line has been proven correct?
Maoism has been proven correct. And as for those who
still cling to their rotten revisionist weapons, what can we say
except that their revisionist line should be smashed over their
heads!
b) The revisionist line defends the “no bourgeoisie
under socialism” line. They argue that there is no contradiction
between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat under socialism. And
they do not want to know how this struggle in the party and the
state is proceeding, because they do not want themselves to be identified.
They portray the bourgeoisie simply as the “old” bourgeoisie with
their factory-owner top-hats!
Their class brothers, the modern revisionist, bureaucratic
dictators, do not say who won out, but we say that Maoism won out.
c) For years we have explained that the bureaucratic
bourgeois dictatorships have used our science as a mask to mislead
the masses. But the revisionists did not understand. They continue
to say that these countries are socialist, but Maoism has won out
because the modern revisionists have taken their masks off and are
now gathering under the flag of free-market, classical capitalism.
2) For years we also explained that the problems of
socialism, with its old division of labour, its remaining inequalities
and alienation, the contradictions between mental and manual labour,
between urban and rural, etc, are remnants of the old society. We
have also explained how we can restrict these contradictions. Thus,
we have explained many times the key role of ideological and political
line, the necessity of controlling the power, and the importance
of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat.
So who won out? Those who say that the old class has been overthrown,
and the problem is finished? Or, Maoism? Again, it is clear that
Maoism has won out.
As we have said before, the organising principle of
distribution under socialism (i.e. from each according to their
ability, to each according to their work) still has inequality
within the apparent equality. By exercising control over the question
of whether or not the definition of rights are to be obeyed, the
state (as in the case of the economy) had a bourgeois side to it.
That is to say: one of the aspects which constituted this state
was bourgeois. In any event, this was inescapable. It is therefore
necessary to make sure that the revolution which defends the proletarian
character of the political power continues without interruption,
so as not to allow the bourgeois aspect of the state and of the
economy to develop in the wrong direction and act as a bridge towards
capitalist restoration. Political power is a weapon to continue
the revolution. It is a weapon to lead the people towards communism.
The proletarian power does not reconcile classes. Our duty
was the GPCR, which we carried out in China and which stopped capitalist
restoration for 10 years. With what?
With Maoism! . . . But even during the GPCR’s successful
days, we still said it was not clear who was going to win. So history
has again proved that Maoism won out.
3) It was “goulash socialism” that was defeated, but
because ordinary people did not understand its nature they reacted
to this by reacting against real socialism also.
Maoist leadership is the flag of all the oppressed
in the struggle to change the world to reach classless society.
Especially today, when economism comes under the imperialist flag
in the imperialist countries, the destiny of social chauvinists
is surrender to imperialism. What about Maoism? . . . Who is welcoming
the bright future for the world? Aren’t Munzur, and Ayacucho in
the Andean mountains, the main strongholds?
The Cultural Revolution, as opposed to the economist
line, is struggling to change the world. Under the correct line,
the masses are the force that is capable of solving any problem.
This is the essence of the Maoist mass line.
The metaphysicians, who cover their faces with the
mask of dialectical materialism, are in reality completely opposed
to it. The essence of dialectical materialism is the unity of opposites
in nature and society. The philosophical idealists who distort this
essence are far from understanding that things are “lively, conditional
and in motion” or the “unity and identity” of objects. Because of
this, their thinking is limited to seeing the tactical strength
of the reactionary forces, and they are blind to the strategic superiority
of the oppressed people. During the time of the Second International,
in a “relatively voiceless” situation, they declared that revolution
was an imaginary ghost.
Kaypakkaya’s Line Is Our Vanguard!
Kaypakkaya was a great Maoist. The TKP (ML), which
was a product of the GPCR and its founding leader Kaypakkaya, has
deepened its understanding of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and carried
it out in practice. Because of this, it has been possible to raise
high the TKP (ML) manifesto concerning both the short-term programme
of democratic revolution and the long-term programme of achieving
communism. Kaypakkaya cannot be defended without defending Maoism.
On the contrary, defending any other line is a sham.
Because of their vulgar materialism and their positivist-economist
understanding of political-economic relations, some people cannot
understand why the revolutionary proletarian vanguard was a result
of the GPCR.
The fact that the class struggle objectively comes
from class society is not open to discussion. The class struggle
is not due to anyone’s will but instead is a result of humanity
being divided into classes. The formation of the proletariat is
a result of a particular stage of development of human society,
in which the proletariat will become the gravediggers of the bourgeoisie.
The aim of our conscious proletarian class struggle includes finally
removing the proletariat (along with all other classes!) from the
stage of history. If a proletarian class exists, it explains the
objective existence of the proletarian parties. The party of the
proletariat cannot be formed spontaneously from the proletarian
struggle, but results from the conscious proletarian revolutionary
struggle. The party is a conscious weapon of the revolutionary
proletariat. With this weapon the proletariat can guide its struggle
on the correct line, and can analyse, grasp, change and light up
the future of the world with the science of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism
(MLM).
The 15-16 of June Movement had created the objective
conditions for taking leaps forward in consciousness. Why didn’t
the organisations of the People’s Liberation Army of Turkey (THKO)
and the Turkish People’s Liberation Party - Front (THKP-C) draw
the necessary lessons and reach the synthesis of MLM? Why couldn’t
they take up the long-term strategic programme of MLM? The answer
to these questions is their outlook. Kaypakkaya was a Maoist because
of his Maoist outlook. The favourable objective conditions were
an advantage, but if Kaypakkaya had not grasped the GPCR, then it
would not have been possible to produce our 1972 Manifesto or our
short- and long-term programmes, despite this advantageous situation.
There have been many favourable lessons that have proven our science
and led to leaps forward in practice in the world (for example,
the lessons of capitalist restoration and the necessity of continuing
the GPCR under the dictatorship of the proletariat), so why do these
forces still not understand Maoism? Because of their outlook.
With our science, which has reached a new and qualitatively
higher stage with the GPCR under Maoist leadership, and with the
leadership of Kaypakkaya, a new and qualitatively higher line in
Turkey and Kurdistan in Turkey has been achieved. Before Kaypakkaya,
the official ideology of the Turkish state, which is Kemalism, was
recognised as a progressive inheritance by the forces who call themselves
revolutionary democrats and “communists”. Furthermore, the Kemalist
repressive movement was recognised as a “progressive movement to
smash reactionary fundamentalism”. Even despite the important radical
actions of the THKO and the THKP-C in 1971, they were unable to
gain a correct understanding and achieve a correct analysis of the
character of the Turkish republic and its army, because of their
outlook. In the international arena in the battle between MLM and
revisionism, they hold a middle line. This is their other weakness.
This movement considered the leadership of the modern revisionist
“new” bourgeois dictatorship in the Soviet Union as socialist. But
practice has shown the importance of Kaypakkaya’s line, which is
easy to grasp for anyone who wants to. Those lovers of the Kemalist
ideology and Kemalist army, the Turkish Revolutionary Workers and
Peasants’ Party (TIIKP), have nothing at all in common with Mao
despite their phrase-mongering. Their line is reformist, parliamentarist
and state “leftist”, and distorts the Maoist new democratic revolution,
people’s war and other teachings of Mao. Kaypakkaya indicated its
character and line even in 1971. After Mustafa Suphi’s death, the
Turkish Communist Party (TKP) became revisionist and then became
a puppet of Soviet social-imperialism. All of these things show
us the importance of Kaypakkaya’s line, which was a qualitative
leap forward in the revolution in Turkey and Kurdistan of Turkey.
Now we ask:
1) Before Kaypakkaya, was there anyone who had recognised
Kemalist ideology as a fascist movement of the Turkish comprador-bourgeoisie
and the big landlords?
2) Before Kaypakkaya, was there anyone who had recognised
and supported the democratic character of the Kurdish national movement
as well as supported Seyh Sait, Dersim, Agri, Kocgiri and other
Kurdish uprisings, and opposed the repression of the Kemalist military?
3) Because of the errors on the Kemalist question,
on the Kurdish national question and other minority questions, could
the “left” overcome its chauvinism enough?
4) Before Kaypakkaya, were the positions of others
towards the state, the military and the revolution correct? (As
for the TKP and the TIIKP, since the essence of these organisations
has already been exposed, it is not necessary to discuss them further.)
a) Why did they love and applaud the coups of 27 May
and 1971?
b) How can their policy of unity in a civilian-military
alliance with the Kemalist army command be explained?
c) What does it mean to treat the Turkish state and
army on the basis of the Kemalist inheritance?
5) Is there anyone - including the armed struggle in
1971 against pacifism – who grasped the strategy of people’s war
for revolution in Turkey and Kurdistan of Turkey, which is the line
of victory and which has already been scientifically proven in practice,
even though some are still debating this? Is there anyone before
Kaypakkaya who grasped the new democratic revolution, the new democratic
people’s power and these strategic weapons: the party, the army
and the united front, on the basis of MLM?
We ask:
a) Compared with the revolutionary teaching of MLM,
can there be any place for the military’s coups, projects, and practice?
b) Can the proletariat support one or another of the
cliques in the bourgeois state and army – and, moreover, support
and take the side of the Kemalist headquarters?
c) In terms of the proletariat’s policy on allying
those who want to smash the system, can they in the meantime also
have an alliance with the system’s army?
6) Before Kaypakkaya, was there anyone who grasped
the character of the social-imperialist camp and held a proletarian
revolutionary position against it?
These questions can be discussed further, but we think
this is enough for those who want to see reality: reality is that
with Kaypakkaya, a period of qualitatively higher resistance has
begun in Turkey and Kurdistan of Turkey.
|