Maoism Versus Opportunism in Turkey
The article
below is excerpted from a letter written by the Committee of the
Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (CoRIM) to the Communist
Party of Turkey/Marxist-Leninist (TKP/ML) in mid-2001. The TKP/ML
is one of several political centres that emerged from the formerly
united Communist Party of Turkey Marxist-Leninist (TKPML), which
was a founding participant of the Revolutionary Internationalist
Movement in 1984.
During the course of a series of splits and realignments among Party
forces, several centres of the TKPML have emerged, each of which
continues to use the name of the Party and claim its heritage. The
names of the two largest groupings that exist today are distinguished
only by punctuation marks: the TKP(ML) and the TKP/ML. In the RIM
Committee letter, reference is made to other centres that have existed
in the course of the Party’s history, in particular the TKP/ML (Maoist
Party Centre), which continues today, and the TKP/ML East Anatolia
Regional Committee, usually referred to by its Turkish initials
DABK, which merged with the TKP/ML Central Committee to form the
TKP/ML Provisional United Central Committee in 1994 and which subsequently
split into the above-mentioned TKP/ML, which publishes Ozgur
Gelecek, and TKP(ML). To minimise confusion concerning the names
of the different Party centres, no punctuation is used when referring
to the previously united TKPML of 1984 and earlier, and the other
centres are referred to by the punctuation they use themselves.
As the letter makes clear, from the formation of RIM onwards serious
differences emerged between the TKPML and RIM, and a long process
of discussion and struggle has gone on involving the different centres
that emerged from the previously united TKPML. The letter is part
of the effort waged by CoRIM to clarify RIM’s relations with the
TKP/ML, whose positions have increasingly diverged from those of
RIM as a whole and which has aligned itself with other non-RIM currents
within the international communist movement.
CoRIM’s letter was never answered by the TKP/ML. A subsequent CoRIM
letter dated January 2002 informs the TKP/ML that, “Your political
positions and approach have long become intolerable for a participating
party or organisation of our Movement. Furthermore, articles in
your press (and especially the interview with a leading comrade
of your Party from the Black Sea region, which spoke of a “rupture”)
led us to believe that you no longer considered yourselves part
of our Movement.... We have seen no reason to believe you are correcting
the serious ideological and political errors that we have criticised
in the past. For all of these reasons our Movement has, in keeping
with its organisational principles, decided to expel the TKP/ML
from RIM.”
The excerpted letter below clarifies the political and ideological
basis and the historical development behind this serious decision.
The full version of the letter has been published in Turkish and
will be soon available in English and Turkish in full on the AWTW
website. The public discussion of this letter will no doubt
contribute to the ongoing process of uniting all of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist
forces of Turkey into a single centre of the Communist Party of
Turkey Marxist-Leninist closely united in RIM. –
A World To Win
Letter
to the Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist-Leninist
From the
Committee of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement
Comrades:….
The formation of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM),
based on its Declaration, represented a great victory for
the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist (MLM) forces world-wide and in fact
marked a major turning point in the crisis of the international
communist movement. Your Party participated in this. (Here we are
referring to the united Party you were part of.) The formation of
RIM laid the basis for ending the process of further disintegration
and collapse [of the international communist movement] and replaced
it with one of higher unity and the growth of the revolutionary
communists – the Maoist forces – in the world. However, shortly
after that, strong trends within TKPML and its leadership opposed
this basis of unity of the MLM forces.1
To this end they put forward a seriously flawed and erroneous argument:
that Mao Tsetung Thought2 did not represent a qualitatively
higher and third stage in the development of Marxism-Leninism. On
the basis of this and a series of other important criticisms, the
Declaration was called “opportunist” by the majority of your
Party leadership. Even at that time significant forces in the TKPML
did not accept these attacks. It is not our intention in this letter
to review the struggle that took place within the Party at that
time or the actions, tactics and subsequent development of the various
forces who either separated from the Party centre to form the Maoist
Party Centre or others who continued to struggle for an MLM line
within the framework of a single Party centre. The point is that
your “centre”, the TKP/ML, is still carrying the ideological baggage
of that time and it is high time it took measures to rectify this.
In addition to negating Mao Tsetung Thought, another major criticism
made by the TKPML at the time was of the summation contained in
the Declaration of Stalin’s errors. This question was closely
related to the question of Maoism. It is a well-known historical
fact that the negation of Mao Tsetung Thought (today Maoism) and
the refusal to recognise comrade Stalin’s errors was spearheaded
by Enver Hoxha [leader of the Party of Labour of Albania] after
Mao’s death and the coup in China. Hoxhaite and semi-Hoxhaite trends
(by semi-Hoxhaites we mean those who rejected some of Hoxha’s more
outrageous conclusions but adopt his world-view and basic arguments
to a large degree) raised their heads in many corners of the international
communist movement during the years following Mao’s death. In the
communist movement of Turkey, including in the TKPML, this trend
was quite pronounced.
There were also several less central but still significant questions
contained in your criticism of the Declaration. Among your
other criticisms was the role of the national bourgeoisie in the
democratic revolution in the oppressed nations. These, as well as
other criticisms, were expressed in the Report of the Fifth Plenum
of the Second Central Committee (CC) of the TKPML and were responded
to in our 1986 letter, to which, in the interests of maintaining
our focus, we will not return in this document.
As of January 2000 we were informed by your representative that
your Party still holds the Declaration to be “opportunist”.
But what is the reason for this charge now? The principal reason
you gave previously for calling our Declaration “opportunist”
was its emphasis on Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought (today
MLM) as a third and higher stage of the development of Marxism.
Now if you really have accepted MLM as a third and higher stage
of Marxism, what is the basis for continuing to hold the position
that the Declaration is “opportunist”? Or is this a conclusion
in search of a justification?
After your Party put forward its seriously wrong positions on Maoism
and called the Declaration of RIM “opportunist”, there ensued
a process of internal struggle between RIM and its parties and organisations
and the TKPML, in regard to this and other cardinal questions of
revolution. CoRIM [Committee of RIM] wrote a very important letter
to your Party responding to your criticisms of the Declaration.
The first Expanded Meeting of the RIM Committee approved this letter
in 1986. This letter seriously criticises your Party’s centrist
position on Mao and Maoism and clarifies that the RIM Declaration
is not only not “opportunist” but is an MLM platform which draws
a clear line of demarcation between Marxism and revisionism in today’s
world. As we said in our 1986 letter:
“The heart of the dispute between the Communist Party of Turkey
Marxist‑Leninist and the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement
has always been, and remains, the question of Marxism‑
Leninism‑Mao Tsetung Thought [today MLM]…. Much of the
attack on the Declaration takes the form of a ‘defence’ of
the great Marxist‑Leninist Joseph Stalin and the revolutionary
heritage of the Third International (Comintern). In fact, this
defence is not, in essence, a defence of Stalin and the Comintern,
and certainly not of their most revolutionary accomplishments; it
is, on the contrary, an attack on Mao Tsetung and, specifically,
on those important criticisms that Mao summed up from the experience
of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union, criticisms
which played an important role in the development of Mao’s most
vital contribution to the science of Marxism‑Leninism, his
theory of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the
proletariat, and which in turn laid the basis for what, in the words
of the Declaration, represents the most advanced experience
of proletarian dictatorship and the revolutionising of society –
the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. The Declaration of
the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement emphasised that,
‘Lack of clarity on this question will lead to revisionism.’”
Your Party also challenged the fact that it was Mao who developed
the strategy and tactics of making proletarian revolution in the
semi-colonial, semi-feudal countries. From the fact that Lenin and
Stalin both paid considerable attention to summing up the initial
development of a revolutionary movement in these countries and made
a series of extremely important observations concerning the revolution
there, you wrongly implied that, therefore, Mao did not make a qualitative
development of Marxism‑Leninism in this field. At that time
(in our 1986 letter) we warned that centrism over MLM would lead
to abandoning the strategy of people’s war. In fact, at different
junctures this centrism led the leadership of TKP/ML to question
the possibility and necessity of waging people’s war in Turkey.
Another argument of your Party for calling the Declaration
“opportunist” was that the Declaration boldly sums up the
deviations of the Comintern during the Second World War and in the
course of adopting the policy of the United Front Against Fascism.
In response to this we said that the Party leadership’s blind defence
of the Comintern is, “above all, a reflection of the TKPML’s open
rejection of the conception of Mao Tsetung Thought and its failure
to really grasp Mao’s qualitative contribution to the science
of Marxism‑Leninism. In order to pull Mao down it is necessary
to build up Stalin and the Comintern and more than that, protect
them from any real, critical summation of practice.”
These were the outstanding ideological and political differences
between the line of your Party and the line of our Movement. They
constituted your Party’s basis for calling the RIM Declaration
an “opportunist” document since 1985.
Are we arguing that there were no errors in the Declaration
written in 1984? Of course not, that would be a Hoxhaite failure
to see the contradiction in everything. In the course of vigorous
debate in the years following the formation of our Movement, we
have developed our collective understanding on a number of important
questions concerning the analysis of the situation in the world
and making revolution. The most far-reaching of these developments
are reflected in the document Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!
which our Movement adopted in 1993. Not only does that document
correctly adopt the term Maoism instead of Mao Tsetung Thought,
it explains the content of that change. Through practice in revolutionary
struggle and lively internal debate we raised our understanding
of the Maoist line for making revolution in the oppressed countries,
the universality of people’s war and other questions, and this higher
understanding was reflected in that document. Important developments
have taken place in our analysis of the world situation, including
reaching a unified position on the principal contradiction in the
world today. Along with these advances in our ideological and political
understanding and unity, our Movement has gained precious experience
in fulfilling its task as the embryonic centre of the Maoist forces
and leading the process of the formation of a new communist international.
RIM has made corresponding organisational advances, and its parties
and organisations and the Movement as a whole have grown stronger
and more capable of fulfilling their responsibilities.
This process has been driven by vigorous internal struggle waged
by RIM’s parties and organisations. Certainly, various forces in
the TKPML have participated directly or indirectly in this process
of unity-struggle-unity. But the negative attitude and approach
to RIM that your Party is championing did not contribute to this
process; rather it can be said that it was an obstacle. The advance
of RIM in all aspects, including its ability to overcome earlier
errors and weaknesses, is testimony to the strength of the MLM basis
on which it was founded.
Since 1985 your Party has gone through many changes of leadership.
Every time you called the previous leadership “rightist” or “opportunist”.
But you never argued, either in meetings with us or in the writings
of your Party, that these previous leaderships had a fundamental
problem – centrism in regard to life-and-death questions of socialist
revolution and Marxism. Even after your Party adopted MLM you did
not base this position on a summation of your past deviations on
this question. Even after you adopted MLM you refused to drop your
position against the Declaration or explain why – this time
on the basis of calling yourself MLM – you think the Declaration
is “opportunist”. In the following sections we will see how, despite
calling yourself MLM, your understanding of our scientific ideology
still lapses in important aspects.
Your Summation
of the TKP/ML’s History Shows
Your Line
We believe that the history of advances and problems of TKP/ML must
be evaluated mainly in relation to Mao and MLM. Not because of our
subjective desire but because it is the reality. We whole-heartedly
unite with the position of TKP(ML) in its letter to RIM which said
whenever the Party departed from MLM it caused crisis and serious
damage. (From the letter of the CC of TKP(ML) to RIM, January 2001).
Only this can be a correct summation of the history of your Party,
and it must be taken as a guideline. In your account of “The Brief
History of TKP/ML” [from a document entitled, Hail the Glorious
Achievements of Our Party on the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of its
Founding and Struggle, July 1997], this approach is absent.
In this account of the TKP/ML history you list numerous problems
your Party had had, where you also toss in the question of Mao Tsetung
in a very ambiguous way. The failure to recognise the root cause
of the problems leads to an eclectic line. The characteristic of
an eclectic line is that it muddles together the correct and incorrect.
Thus, the partial truths that are expressed become mere demagoguery
in the service of what is wrong. This kind of line only confuses
minds. Since it pays lip service to some correct points it hopes
to prevent the revolutionary masses from seeing its fundamentally
wrong essence. Because it mixes primary and secondary problems together,
it diverts attention from the essence of the problem. That is why
eclecticism has often been the vehicle used by right opportunism
when the open advocacy of an overtly opportunist line is difficult
– we saw this same situation in China when the revolutionary left
had to sharply struggle against the eclecticism serving as a Trojan
Horse for the right opportunist line of Deng Xiao-ping. One would
expect that, especially when a document is only a “Brief History”,
it would deal with the principal problem at each turning point of
the Party’s history.
Your account of Comrade Ibrahim Kaypakkaya’s split from the Shafak
revisionists [a group of pro-Soviet revisionists] lacks decisive
aspects of historical truth. You fail to underline the fact that
the formation of the Party was principally related to the world-wide
struggle between Marxism and revisionism. You fail to grasp what
Comrade Ibrahim Kaypakkaya stressed, that, “It must be emphatically
said that the TKPML is a product of the Great Proletarian Cultural
Revolution.” It was under the influence of the Great Proletarian
Cultural Revolution and his grasp of MLM that Ibrahim Kaypakkaya
could recognise the revisionist essence of the Shafak group even
while they were covering their revisionism in a garb of pro-Mao
posturing. Comrade Ibrahim Kaypakkaya exposed the reformist, legalist
and economist activities of the Shafak revisionists and ruthlessly
uncovered their poisonous revisionist eclecticism. He convincingly
argued that “these gentlemen think that by changing the name they
can change the content”.
In 1979, the Party had correctly pointed out that: “In the fight
against Khrushchevite modern revisionism, young Marxist‑Leninist
parties were born in many countries under the influence of the Great
Proletarian Cultural Revolution.... Our Party was born under such
conditions [following a reference to, among other things, the “world-wide
effects of the Cultural Revolution”] in Turkey and the world.” The
formation of the TKPML was part of the whole Marxist‑Leninist
movement that, to quote the Declaration, “has as its origins
this historic appeal [referring to the Proposal for a General
Line of the International Communist Movement] and the polemics
that accompanied it.” It was precisely the inspiration of the Cultural
Revolution that played a key role in the development of a vanguard
party in Turkey. For, as in a great many countries, the history
of the communist parties that had been part of the Third International
was far from revolutionary. As we said in our 1986 letter: “In the
case of Turkey, it seems evident that, on the ideological level
as well as in practice, Ibrahim Kaypakkaya represented the kind
of rupture with revisionism that was the precondition to the development
of a real Marxist‑Leninist movement. In fact, the great contribution
of Ibrahim Kaypakkaya was to bring Mao Tsetung Thought to Turkey,
to begin the process of integrating the universal truth of Marxism‑Leninism‑Mao
Tsetung Thought with the concrete realities of Turkey, and, on that
basis, to launch the first real and serious efforts to establish
red political power amidst the flames of people’s war” [quoted from
the 1986 CoRIM letter to TKPML].
Grasping
the Key Link
Again, in your account of the Party's history from 1978 onwards,
the key link is not grasped.
After the death of Mao and the counter-revolutionary coup in China
a crisis broke out in the International Communist Movement and within
the communist parties and organisations that had been formed in
the midst of the international struggle led by the Communist Party
of China and Mao against the modern revisionists in the USSR. This
crisis took another leap when the revisionist Enver Hoxha launched
a vicious attack against Mao and MLM.
The problem of Mao and Maoism in the Party since then is rooted
in that crisis. In some parties there were splits between Marxist-Leninist-Maoists
and those that sided with Hua Kuo-feng and Deng Xiao-ping and called
China socialist. Some of the that parties that denounced the revisionist
nature of the new rulers in China were unable to extend this to
digging deeper into Mao and MLM and resolutely upholding and applying
MLM. As a result a centrist tendency developed towards MLM in some
communist parties and organisations. In some cases this happened
because a strong pro-Hoxha trend developed. In other cases it happened
without an explicit pro-Hoxha grouping developing. Nonetheless,
whether they openly upheld Hoxha or not, they shared a common line
and outlook on vital issues regarding the international communist
movement and revolution. Within TKPML there developed a liquidationist
and centrist trend concerning Mao and Maoism. The liquidationist
tendency was represented by those who were openly pro-Hoxha. But
even after Hoxha’s attacks against Mao were rebuffed, the TKPML
dropped Mao Tsetung Thought. TKPML continued to defend Mao and his
contributions but refrained from restoring Marxism-Leninism-Mao
Tsetung Thought as the ideological basis on which, in fact, the
Party had been formed.
In your whole account of your “Brief History” there is no mention
of this! There is no mention that your Party dropped Mao Tsetung
Thought and did not restore it for more than 10 years. Your Party
only called itself Marxist-Leninist and even criticised the Declaration
of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement as “opportunist”
for upholding Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought. It is amazing
that you can keep quiet about this long lapse and not sum it up
in your “Brief History” even while you deal with diverse (real or
imaginary) kinds of deviations of different sections of TKPML in
that “Brief History”. You treat this long lapse in dropping Maoism
as a very minor misunderstanding! You keep quiet about this but
you cannot pass up celebrating the one hundredth anniversary of
Hoxha’s birth in your legal paper, Ozgur Gelecek! Is this
not amazing?
In your “Brief History” you recount the important and correct struggle
of TKPML in 1976 against those who later became Halkin Birligi
[who until 1994 called themselves TKP/ML Hareketi, or TKP/ML Movement].
You say: “…the views of this faction and those of the Party were
diametrically opposed. These differences were on the analysis of
socio-economic structure of the country, the path of revolution,
the character of revolution, the preparation for revolution, the
main contradiction, and Mao Tse-Tung” [cited from the English translation
of Hail the Glorious…, 1997]
You correctly call this group a “revisionist” group. But what was
the principal reason for their revisionism? If it was liquidation
of Mao, then why are you mentioning it last, and referring to the
Mao question as one of the differences with this group? In fact
it may well be true that your Party at the time dealt with this
difference as only one among many. But to treat the difference on
this question merely as one of the differences was and is wrong.
It is a sign of your centrist line on the cardinality of Mao and
Maoism in the fight against revisionism. At that time (as well as
now) that was the key problem of your Party. Every other
problem that you listed in your article boiled down from liquidating
Mao. The negation of Ibrahim Kaypakkaya’s line flowed from liquidating
Mao. If this is not grasped you will not be able to make a correct
summation of the Party’s history. You will always end up with an
eclectic summation. You should follow what Mao taught: grasp the
key link! Once one grasps the key link everything else will fall
into place.
In the “Brief History” you sum up the February 1978 Conference of
your Party in this way: “This Conference was particularly important
as a decision was taken to stop organising locally and begin organising
centrally. The initial period of the First CC…was qualitatively
MLM. Nevertheless, at the fourth meeting, the CC departed from the
MLM line and went towards the right…. Despite discussions about
People’s War, the idea would only stay in theory.”
It is true that this Conference was very important in terms of reorganisation
of the TKPML. But it is amazing that you forget to mention
that it was this Conference which changed the guiding ideology of
TKPML from Marxism‑Leninism‑Mao Tsetung Thought to Marxism-Leninism.
It was this Conference that dropped Mao Tsetung Thought and lowered
Mao to the ranks of Dimitrov [a Bulgarian communist who was a leading
figure in the international communist movement in the 1930s] and
even Hoxha. In 1978 the First Conference of the TKPML published
a document entitled “Self-criticism of the TKPML” addressed to
the “Marxist‑Leninists of the world”. This document, which
examines some questions of the history of the Party, tries to link
the conception of Mao Tsetung Thought to the erroneous view put
forward by Lin Piao regarding “a new era”. The First Conference
stated: “...although F. Engels, J.V. Stalin, G. Dimitrov, E. Hoxha
and Mao Tsetung are great teachers, they have not contributed to
the theory on a new basis for they have not lived in a new era different
from Marx’s or Lenin’s.”
The fact that today your Party evaluates this period of the First
CC as “qualitatively Maoist” shows that your understanding of Maoism
is still marred by more than a few remnants of Hoxhaism. One expects
that when you start criticising the First CC because it “departed
from MLM and went to the right” you would mention the fact that
it developed a semi-Hoxhaite centrist line on Mao and that it openly
negated the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution’s universal application.
Instead you beat around the bush in order to avoid the principal
deviation of the First CC. Why do you do that? Is it not because
you still have not grasped the essence of Maoism despite the fact
that you have adopted the name? Your “Brief History” criticises
the First CC for not implementing people’s war. While this was an
extremely important deviation, it was not the cause but the result.
Dropping Mao Tsetung Thought from the guiding line of your Party
and negating the universality of the Great Proletarian Cultural
Revolution by your First CC meant that your Party leadership was
confused about the nature of its goal: socialism and communism.
Dropping Mao Tsetung Thought, especially in the climate of Enver
Hoxha’s assault on Mao for “war without perspective” and “populism”
(by which he means “based on the peasantry”), also meant dropping
people’s war and the basic line Mao developed for revolution in
semi-feudal, semi-colonial countries. Unfortunately your Party is
still unable to see this fundamental problem. We should stress that
your account of this history avoids key questions, reverses the
primary and secondary and cause and effect, and sows confusion.
This First TKPML Central Committee correctly opposed the reactionary
attacks of Hoxha on Mao Tsetung. But despite the refusal of the
TKPML Central Committee to adopt Hoxha’s conclusions, Hoxhaite thinking
and approach continued to exert influence. In fact a key feature
of the First CC of TKPML was that it tried to strike a “middle ground”.
On the one hand it rejected the reactionary attacks of the Hoxhaites
on Mao and on the other hand it developed a line against accepting
Mao’s developments of Marxism-Leninism. Look what it says against
Mao indirectly: “Similarly, the idea that links the class struggle
to the existence of the bourgeoisie as a class and the idea that
propounds its continued existence as a class throughout the historical
stage of socialism, are also ideas that constitute a deviation from
Marxism‑Leninism.” [From the Report of the Ninth Plenum of
the First CC of TKPML.] Your account of history misses this important
fact of the history of your Party in an astonishing manner! We deeply
believe that this is not just a misunderstanding but a line question.
Your First CC in a number of its documents rejected Mao’s cardinal
analysis of the existence of classes and class struggle under socialism,
two-line struggle in the party and the universal significance of
the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution….
The First CC openly criticised Mao and the Communist Party of China
on the vital question of the two-line struggle in the party and
put out a “classic” Hoxhaite line that: “The Chinese Communist Party
regarded the struggle between the ‘two lines’, i.e. the proletarian
line and the bourgeois line, as legitimate. This is not a correct
understanding. What is legitimate is ideological struggle within
the Party. Whether this turns into a struggle between two lines
is dependent on a series of objective and subjective factors.” As
we know, neither Enver Hoxha nor the First CC of the TKPML was correct
in saying that Mao held that the existence of the bourgeois line
was “legitimate”. Rather, he held that such a struggle was inevitable,
had material roots, and if not paid attention to would lead to disaster
for the proletariat. Mao’s correct understanding was linked to his
whole dialectical materialist approach and its application to understanding
the laws of socialist society.
In the face of Hoxhaite attacks against Mao, the Party did not firmly
defend Mao but took the position that the Great Proletarian Cultural
Revolution does not have universal application. The “Report of the
Ninth Plenum” said: “It is to create a theoretical dogma, for instance,
to present the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution as it took
shape in China – which was a product of the specific circumstances
in China – as a universal principle.” This position went against
the foundations of the TKPML, which was a product of the Great Proletarian
Cultural Revolution. This kind of position went against the urgent
need for drawing a clear line of demarcation between Marxism and
revisionism. Compare this position with the sharp and clear position
of the Declaration that you call an “opportunist” document:
“Lenin said, ‘Only he/she is a Marxist who extends the recognition
of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship
of the proletariat.’ In the light of the invaluable lessons
and advances achieved through the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution
led by Mao Tsetung, this criterion put forward by Lenin has been
further sharpened. Now it can be said that only he/she is a Marxist
who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition
of the dictatorship of the proletariat and to the recognition of
the objective existence of classes, antagonistic class contradictions
and of the continuation of the class struggle under the dictatorship
of the proletariat throughout the whole period of socialism until
communism. And as Mao so powerfully stated, ‘Lack of clarity
on this question will lead to revisionism.’”
Therefore, your “Brief History” definitely closes its eyes when
it says that, “The initial period of the First CC… was qualitatively
MLM…” and links the departure of the Fourth Plenum of the CC from
the “MLM line” to not taking steps towards starting armed struggle
and not foreseeing the military coup, etc., problems which however
important were not the source but the results. Rather, it could
be said that those errors were the logical conclusion of the line
adopted earlier.
It was shortly after the Ninth Central Committee meeting of the
TKPML that the First International Conference of Marxist‑Leninist
Parties and Organisations took place in 1980. In this International
Conference the TKPML participated as observers. The TKPML delegation
played an extremely negative role in the Conference, parroting Hoxhaite
attacks on Mao Tsetung Thought, and masquerading as defenders of
Stalin and the Comintern. The TKPML refused to sign the Joint Communiqué
produced by the First International Conference. This is another
part of your Party’s history that you have dubiously forgotten to
mention.
During this entire period various forces in the international communist
movement continued to struggle with the comrades of the TKPML, to
demonstrate their erroneous positions and the dangers involved in
such a centrist approach.
The Second Conference of the TKPML was held in January 1981. At
this meeting the “Bolshevik” faction in the Central Committee criticised
Mao Tsetung and declared that Mao Tsetung, unlike Marx, Engels,
Lenin and Stalin, could not be considered a “classic”. The “Bolsheviks”
were defeated in this Conference and Mao was upheld as a “classic”.
The “Bolshevik” faction was expelled from the Party. In the aftermath
of the Second Conference, the newly elected Central Committee re‑examined
the position that had been taken by the previous Central Committee
regarding the Joint Communiqué and decided to sign the Communiqué
with some reservations (which were reprinted in the second issue
of A World to Win (first pre-RIM series)). Similarly, the
Second Plenum of the TKPML Central Committee criticised itself for
not having fulfilled its responsibilities in relation to the international
communist movement and pledged to make further efforts. The victory
over the “Bolshevik” line was testimony to the strong influence
of Mao and Maoism within the TKPML as well as the heritage of Ibrahim
Kaypakkaya. It was a sign that the revolutionary leaders and members
of the Party, unlike bourgeois democrats, want to fight for a genuine
revolution and not something else.
We agree with your “Brief History” that, “The most important issue
dealt with by this Second Conference was the defence of Mao against
the attacks from the Enver Hoxha fraction.… In short Mao and his
teachings were resolutely defended in this conference.” But we
should emphasise the fact that this Conference did not succeed in
uprooting the centrist line on Mao and MLM. Even after the expulsion
of the Hoxhaite revisionists from the Party, the TKPML continued
to refrain from recognising Mao Tsetung Thought or Maoism as a qualitatively
new and higher stage in the development of Marxism‑Leninism.
A great many discussions were held between various Maoist parties
who had signed the Joint Communiqué and representatives of the TKPML
on a whole series of outstanding questions, most of all on Mao Tsetung
Thought.
Again, your account of this period of the history of the Party obscures
and covers over the main problem. You do not even mention that,
despite defending Mao against the “Bolshevik fraction”, that conference
failed to re-inscribe MLM on the banner of the Party. This is how
you describe this period in your “Brief History”: “One side of contradiction
was right opportunism and the other side was ‘left’ opportunism.
One side of contradiction was bureaucratism and the other side was
sectarianism. While both the right and ‘left’ opportunism seriously
affected the Party, it was the right that posed the main danger.”
The fact that political-ideological polarisation within the Party
crystallised around these secondary issues rather than the root
cause was itself a problem. It was an important sign that the key
link was not grasped. In your “Brief History” you still fail to
grasp the key source of the different deviations that sprang up
in the Party. Again, not accepting MLM (at the time Mao Tsetung
Thought) as the guiding ideology of TKPML and not defining the contributions
of Mao as the third and qualitatively higher stage of development
of Marxism-Leninism was not just a minor misunderstanding on your
part. It was an obvious sign of not grasping/accepting the truth
of Mao’s contributions. It was a wrong line and it must be stated
as such. The fact that today you dismiss this criticism and run
away from it, the fact that you do not want to look it in the eye
and sum it up in order to get rid of all of its manifestations,
shows that despite the fact that you have adopted the term you have
not grasped the essence of MLM.
Your “Brief History” continues to miss major turning points in the
life of the TKPML. In 1984 the Party joined the efforts to convene
the Second International Conference and form RIM. At the Second
International Conference, the Party was represented by top Party
leadership. The Party was actively involved in drafting the Declaration
of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement. It played an
important role both in struggling for its positions and in uniting
with the consensus of the Conference.
This was another big victory for the TKPML and could have cleared
the way for the total victory of MLM in the Party, but instead the
Party continued to maintain its core understanding on Mao Tsetung
Thought. Notably, soon after the formation of RIM the Turkish edition
of the Declaration was printed with a statement expressing
the TKPML’s disagreement with Mao Tsetung Thought. Later, the viewpoint
of the TKPML Central Committee evolved into the extreme position
put forward in their Report holding the Declaration to be
“opportunist”.
In a strange manner your “Brief History” jumps over this rather
important period! There is not even a word about it. The years 1984-1986
simply do not exist in your “Brief History”.
Even though sharp differences existed within the TKPML, unfortunately
these differences did not crystallise mainly around MLM. A third
Conference was held by the CC of the TKPML in 1987. Your Brief History
says: “This conference was a milestone as it swept away the effects
of the 12 September coup within the Party and united the Party.
This Conference decided that guerrilla war was the main task. The
Third Conference on the one hand criticised and condemned right
opportunism within the Party and on the other hand analysed DABK
[East Anatolia Regional Committee]. Although DABK’s wrong tendency
and departure from MLM was openly identified, this conference regarded
them as one of the forces within the Party. Therefore, the Third
Conference did not understand the true nature of the DABK. The DABK
was seen to be MLM in theory and in defence of the Party programme
but this was on the surface.”
This account of the Party's history really surprises us. No doubt
there are important lessons that should be understood and summed
up from the division of the Party into the CC and the DABK centres
at that time. But one thing is sure: summation of this question
also must be based on putting the problem of MLM at the centre.
Otherwise, it will fail to get to the heart of the problems.
As far as we know, the Third Conference of your Party adopted the
term Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought. However it is very clear
that the Hoxhaite trend and thinking continued to exert considerable
influence in your Party. Just to give one example we will quote
your Party’s amazing summation of the nature of the Party of Labour
of Albania: “Within the parties and states who claimed to be communists,
the position of the Labour Party and the People’s Republic of Albania
was less decayed, therefore they had more positive aspects in the
country’s life. It also deviated from ML and became revisionist,
however it was not as bad as other revisionism. […] It didn’t have
an exploiter class and a privileged section. There was not any serious
proof showing that the Party of Labour of Albania has started revisionist–capitalist
restoration. [...] up to now we have not said that Albania is
not a socialist country. […] It was the only country that kept
socialism alive and was less influenced by the liberal-bourgeois
wind.” (“Ibrahim Kaypakkaya”, Worker Peasant Liberation,
1990, number 95, page 27.)
After unity of the two sides – between the CC and DABK – in 1993,
the united Party adopted MLM instead of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung
Thought. Your “Brief History” says: “One of the important decisions
of this First Extraordinary Conference [in 1993] was to accept MLM
instead of Mao Tsetung Thought.” In our opinion this was a great
advance. But it was not clear on the basis of what line struggles
within the Party this was adopted and how the Party summed up its
past centrism on this question. In fact, your “Brief History” implies
that no summation was (and is) seen as necessary. You imply this
by saying: “Although the content of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung
Thought had been understood correctly, the naming of it had been
incomplete.”
We wish this were true. But unfortunately it seems that the Hoxhaite
legacy had not been uprooted properly even at this point. The least
sign of it is that even after your Party adopted MLM it also
celebrated the hundredth birthday of Hoxha with a large photograph
of him in your journal Ozgur Gelecek in 1994. In our meeting
with your Party’s delegation we seriously criticised you for celebrating
this revisionist who spared no effort to attack Maoism and confuse
the international communist movement. But you did not accept our
criticism. Your representative told us that Hoxha was a Marxist-Leninist
in the past and you were celebrating his birthday for his past contributions.
Astonishing! Imagine celebrating Kautsky, Liu Shao-chi and other
big revisionists for their revolutionary past. That can only mean
celebrating Hoxha today in the guise of respecting his past!
The disturbing signs do not stop here. In fact, publishing Hoxha’s
picture and celebrating his birth were only an aesthetic expression
of what line your leadership held. Almost at the same time a series
of articles were published in your monthly theoretical journal Partizan.
In these articles (“The Truth About Stalin”, Partizan, 1994,
numbers 13, 14 and 15), one of your theoreticians/leaders elaborates
a Hoxahite line on important questions that are at the heart of
the dispute over MLM. This series of articles continue to repeat
the same centrist line of the First Central Committee but this time
under a mask of MLM. They uphold Comrade Stalin’s wrong line on
the cardinal questions regarding the nature of socialism and class
struggle under socialism and attack Mao’s line without naming Mao.
Fortunately, shortly after the appearance of these articles another
article called “On Comrade Stalin” (Partizan, September 1994)
written by TKP(ML) comrades responded sharply to this line. This
refreshing response removed the MLM mask of “The Truth About Stalin”
and made an uplifting defence of true Maoism. (At this time you
and the comrades of TKP(ML) were still in the unified Party, which
split soon after.) This response was a sign that the MLM forces
within your Party are fighting against the pernicious Hoxahite influence.
It shows that the principal historical two-line struggle within
your Party still needs to be settled in a clear-cut way once and
for all and that the task of uprooting Hoxhaite influences and reviving
genuine Maoism in the TKP/ML still remains. “On Comrade Stalin”
adequately exposes a wrong trend in your Party, which under the
garb of defending Stalin is, in fact, attacking Mao and consecrating
Comrade Stalin’s grave errors. It exposes how still strong forces
within your Party are trying to sneak in Hoxha’s influence through
the back door by adopting the wrong aspects of Stalin’s understanding
of socialism. “On Comrade Stalin” makes a strong defence of Mao’s
analysis of classes and class struggle under socialism, his analysis
of the political economy of socialism, and the Maoist concept of
two-line struggle in the communist party – all based on defending
Mao’s criticisms of Comrade Stalin’s line and practice in these
matters. It sharply points out that the problem of the line under
criticism is not “only the Party of Labour of Albania question;
they cannot break with Khrushchevism, with which the Labour Party
of Albania shares a common legacy as well.” And it continues, “You
cannot empty Mao and call it defence of Mao! To impose revisionism
by putting an empty shell of Mao in between two eyebrows and eyes
is not Maoism.” The article says: “The ‘Truth about Stalin’ tries
to impose the line of the First CC and Bolshevik Partisan
which systematised its errors under the cover of the MLM brand.”
And “this is not ‘Maoism’ but an expression of the centrism of the
First CC and the systematisation of its errors and the defence of
Bolshevik Partisan, all of which in internal and external
party struggles had been repudiated and rejected. This is the same
line even though it hurls curse words at Bolshevik Partisan…”
(‘On Comrade Stalin’, section on Two-Line Struggle, page 40 in Turkish).
The article exposes the pro-Party of Labour of Albania essence of
this line in many aspects. It shows how this trend “like the revisionists
attaches itself to the errors of Stalin”. It shows how this line
tries to use a Trotskyite blanket to cover Stalin’s errors and attack
Mao’s line on socialism. It exposes this line’s wrong understanding
of two-line struggle in the party and demonstrates the Hoxhaite
outlook of the author(s) on this question. For example it says:
“Those friends who in the name of defending Maoism criticise the
Party of Labour of Albania are in fact repeating the Party of Labour
of Albania’s line. That is why it is useless for these friends to
separate themselves from the Party of Labour of Albania in words.
They are sitting in the same room. They cannot change this reality
by hanging a Mao picture on the walls of this room! Their views
are only different in words and not in essence” (“On Comrade Stalin”,
Section 5). The article seriously defends and reaffirms Mao’s criticisms
of Stalin’s errors. Obviously, your Party, TKP/ML, owes this critique
an answer if you believe in the necessity of two-line struggle.
Mao’s Development
of MarxismAccording
to TKP/ML
In a different section of your 1997 document you put forward your
views on Maoism. We agree with most (not all) of what you say, that
“it is not enough to recognise only Marxism-Leninism or theories
of Marx-Lenin-Stalin. It is also important to take this understanding
one step further by the recognition of Maoism.” We agree that Maoism
must be recognised as the third and highest stage of Marxism up
to now. However, we do not agree that Comrade Stalin can be put
on the same level as Mao. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism was developed
mainly by Marx, Lenin and Mao. It is better to talk about “three
(Marx, Lenin, Mao) plus two (Engels, Stalin)” as the formula to
emphasise the central role of Marx, Lenin and Mao in relation to
the development of MLM. We also do not think that Marxism-Leninism-Maoism
is simply “one step further” than Marx-Lenin-Stalin. Certainly,
Mao could not have developed Marxism without learning from Marx,
Engels, Lenin and Stalin. But nor could he have developed Marxism
without taking some steps away from Comrade Stalin. We do
not agree entirely with your statement that: “He [Mao] continued
the work that was started by the four great masters of the class.”
We do not emphasise only continuity but also rupture
– that is, Maoism also developed because Mao did not follow
Stalin in very important aspects. In fact the centrist and semi-Hoxhaite
trend within TKP/ML has always opposed the criticisms that Mao made
of Stalin’s view of the nature and dynamics of socialism and the
political economy of socialism. They insisted that Mao’s contributions
to Marxism are a simple extension and continuation of those of Stalin.
Mao made the very important criticism that Stalin’s thinking contained
a significant amount of metaphysics and that he “taught others metaphysics”.
In short, the negation of Stalin’s errors is a decisive element
in Mao’s development of Marxism to a whole new stage. This point
was elaborated in our 1986 letter to you and it has been clearly
raised by other comrades who have waged struggle against this centrist
and semi-Hoxhaite influence in the TKP/ML. This is not a minor disagreement
between your and our understanding. It has to do with deeply grasping
Maoism and the lessons of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.
[The section cut from here expounded on Mao’s understanding of the
political economy of socialism. – AWTW]
How the
Proletariat Leads
In our 1986 letter to the Party we warned that centrism regarding
MLM would lead to abandoning people’s war. As is known, in different
periods the TKP/ML leadership questioned the possibility and necessity
of waging people’s war in Turkey. This was a serious result of negating
the universality of Maoism. As our 1986 letter to you emphasised,
“any attempt to negate the universality of Mao Tsetung Thought carries
with it the danger of abandoning the concept of People’s War and
the need to develop red political power.” We should remember that
one of Enver Hoxha’s vicious attacks against Mao was over the strategy
of people’s war. He mocked it as “a war without perspective” and
a “peasant war”, implying that it did not have anything to do with
the leadership of the proletariat in the new-democratic revolution.
The TKP/ML’s negation of the universality of people’s war was not
unrelated to the Hoxhaite influence within it….
The title of your document – “TKP/ML: New World Order, Working Class,
and its Leading Role” – promises to explain how the working class
should play its leading role in the world. Through this document
we find out that the TKP/ML thinks that the leading role of the
working class is expressed through organising militant trade union
movements. This document goes on and on about the history and evolution
of the trade union movement, the role that communists should play
in developing the trade union movement and its role in achieving
victory (what kind?) for the proletariat. This document fails to
mention even once the central task of revolutionary communists –
the seizure of power by armed force – and its centrality in establishing
the leading role of the working class under the leadership of its
communist party. Lenin made the point that the class-conscious worker
should not be a trade union secretary but a tribune of the people.
In order to apply the Leninist line – as it was developed in his
work What is To Be Done? and applied in the practice of making
revolution in Russia– the working class should put itself at the
head of the democratic revolution. In China, Mao took that Leninist
line and raised it to the level that the working class should lead
the people, especially the peasants, in people’s war in order to
carry out new-democratic revolution and establish socialism. But
your document does not even once mention the task of the working
class in leading the new-democratic revolution and the role of people’s
war, as though this has nothing to do with “achieving victory” for
the working class – or perhaps you think this is a “peasant” matter
and does not have anything to do with the working class “leadership”
or “achieving victory”!
…We do not negate the role that genuine trade union struggles of
the workers at times can play as a school of war, as Lenin put it.
However, when the war itself is absent from the picture no schooling
will help. Through studying this document we see a serious lack
of understanding of the MLM guideline that all revolutionary activities
–including workers’ militant economic struggles – before the initiation
of people’s war should serve its initiation and after initiation
should serve its development…. At best it can be said you do not
relate your trade union activities to carrying out the New Democratic
Revolution and people’s war, and their place in this strategy. Your
document fails to mention that the most important “intervention”
of the revolutionary communists in the spontaneous struggles of
the workers is to make them serve the revolutionary struggle for
the seizure of power. You mention once the need for “the intervention
of the communists and revolutionaries in the light of MLM” but you
reduce this to intervention in helping bring about the “class trade
union” organisation of the workers. However just the struggle of
the workers in Turkey to have their independent trade unions may
be, this struggle, even if led by MLM forces, can never establish
the leading role of the working class. In this 57-page document
about the leading role of working class and how it should achieve
victory there is nothing about the fact that without state power
the working class can do nothing, that without state power all is
illusion and that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun,
and that without a people’s army the people have nothing even if
they have powerful trade unions….
In stressing the need for the trade union movement for making proletarian
revolution in both types of countries [imperialist and oppressed
countries – AWTW] your document takes note of the degeneration
of the trade unions in the imperialist countries and how they have
become part of “the corporate structure”. It goes on and on about
the numerous major changes produced by the development of capitalism/imperialism
and the relations of all these to the evolution in the nature of
trade unions. It “forgets” Lenin’s decisive analysis of imperialism
and the most important change in the class configuration in these
countries as a result of the development of capitalism into imperialist
capitalism – the split in the working class in the imperialist countries
with the appearance of a labour aristocracy, which is an ally of
the bourgeoisie. The TKP/ML paints the “working class” in the imperialist
countries as an undifferentiated whole. Therefore it is unable to
explain the material basis of the trade unions becoming part of
“the corporate structure”. The TKP/ML says that the privileges provided
by the bourgeoisie to the working class after the Second World War
“led to the imagination” [illusions] that its aims could be realised
within the system. There is absolutely no mention of a split in
the working class and a shift in class alliances in the imperialist
countries. The TKP/ML explains this phenomenon only in the sphere
of ideology as though it does not have a material basis….
Not seeing the class basis for this degeneration has made many communist
parties in the imperialist countries follow the false road of competing
with the social-democratic and revisionist parties of the ruling
classes in the imperialist countries on labour aristocratic terms
and in the same fields of trade unions and elections – for example,
look at the Marxist-Leninist Party of Germany’s (MLPD) strategy
in Germany. As far as we know in the last elections in Germany your
Party called upon the masses to vote for Marxist-Leninist Party
of Germany candidates!
The TKP/ML only mentions the struggles of certain strata of the
working class in the imperialist countries, such as the strike of
the Bridgestone workers on 12 July 1994 and the UPS strike in the
US. But there is nothing about the Los Angeles uprising of proletarian
masses in 1992 and the numerous walk-outs and struggles of the lowest
strata of workers made up heavily of Hispanic immigrants and Blacks
in that country. This conception of the “workers struggle” has striking
similarities to a trend in the international movement which proposes
reformist, trade union struggle in the imperialist countries while
accepting a mixture of the same thing plus a circumscribed “armed
struggle” for the semi-feudal, semi-colonial countries – trends
represented by such parties as the Marxist-Leninist Party of Germany
and the Party of Labour of Belgium (PTB)….
[The section cut from here is on the international communist movement
and RIM – AWTW]
Your Line
on the International Communist Movement
is Eclectic
…In your article (in the 4-17 September 1998 issue of Ozgur Gelecek)
you make an evaluation of the international communist movement,
including RIM. In the introduction to this part you say, “serious
new alignments are under way” in the international communist movement,
but you totally fail to say what is the character of each: Marxist
or revisionist? Let us take a look at your evaluation of international
communist movement forces:
“1- RIM…which bases itself on the MLM formula, and which our Party
and the Peruvian Communist Party are still in a way members of,
and which, however, is going through a lot more and serious problems
because of the self-serving, pragmatist, hegemonistic conduct of
its leadership that has grown far from fulfilling its leadership
mission and thus from being capable of acting on numerous possibilities
that have developed in the past ten years and whose many members
have become increasingly passive.
“2- The ‘Marxist-Leninist platform’ where the Marxist-Leninist Party
of Germany and Communist Party of the Philippines are influential,
which bases itself on Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought, although
there are also parties and organisations within it that are based
on MLM, is experiencing serious political-ideological problems but
still demonstrates a positive tendency in the three alignments,
and has over 20 members today.
“3-The ‘Marxist-Leninist platform’ that takes as its basis the minimum
criteria of unity as organised by the Party of Labour of Belgium
in May every year, with the participation of organisations that
have different lines, and where membership is growing but the level
of quality is falling.
“4- The ‘Marxist-Leninist platform’ that principally follows the
line of the Party of Labour of Albania….”
You glaringly fail to put forward an ideological and political yardstick
for evaluating different forces in the international communist movement.
First you paint an eclectic, hodgepodge picture of the international
communist movement forces. And then you leak out your position that
among different alignments, despite the fact that RIM is based on
MLM and your Party “in a way is a member” (is it?), RIM should be
“isolated” because of “self-serving, pragmatist, hegemonistic” conduct!!
Is not all this just for the purpose of muddying the ideological
and political lines of demarcation that are necessary for recognising
who are Marxists and who are revisionists in this world?
Your harshest criticisms are reserved for the thoroughgoing MLM
forces, in other words, RIM. And you have a slap on the wrist for
openly revisionist forces – for example the alignment that the Party
of Labour of Belgium and a party from Russia are trying to forge.
(For a critique of this alignment, see the editorial in AWTW
1998/23, as well as a critique of the Russian Party, the All-Union
Party of Communist Bolsheviks.) In this document you express a positive
inclination for the International Conference of Marxist-Leninists
(ICML), within which there is an array of Maoists and revisionists
and which itself suffers from the lack of an ideological and political
basis of unity capable of regrouping Marxists on a clearly revolutionary
communist basis. Such a basis can only be MLM – not MLM as a “formula”
(as you put it) but as content, as a revolutionary line for making
revolution in the different types of countries.
You criticise the alliance of the Party of Labour of Belgium and
the Russian Party (who want to rebuild their International on the
basis of Marx, Lenin and Stalin) for their falling “level of quality”.
What is the content of this “falling quality” in terms of MLM? As
far as we are concerned their level falls from revisionism to more
revisionism. In your evaluation there is no mention of the fundamental
and principal feature of this alliance. Their main feature is that
they reject the struggle waged by the revolutionary communists of
the world under the leadership of Mao and the Communist Party of
China against Khrushchevite revisionism. The starting point for
evaluating any international grouping or party that claims to be
a part of the international communist movement is the recognition
that Mao rescued the international communist movement from the
morass of revisionism, first by the great struggle against modern
revisionism and then by leading the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.
But in your evaluation of these groupings no such criteria are
used. There is no mention of the fact that today’s revolutionary
communist movement is a direct result of, above all, the
Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, which, in the words of the
Declaration, “gave rise to a whole new generation of Marxist‑
Leninists”. In fact, the TKPML itself is a product of the Great
Proletarian Cultural Revolution. The fact that in evaluating the
international groupings you do feel obliged to talk about the “self-serving,
pragmatist, hegemonistic conduct” of RIM’s “leadership” but that
you “forget” cardinal lines of demarcation between Marxism and revisionism
in evaluating “Marxist-Leninist platforms” is astounding! This does
not look like the legacy of Comrade Ibrahim Kaypakkaya but the legacy
of the Hoxhaite tendencies which hoped to take over TKPML. This
shows that it is not enough to talk about MLM. One should apply
it to everything. This shows that one cannot look at MLM as a “formula”
– it is a complete outlook, stand and method for understanding and,
more importantly, for changing the world….
Not to focus on cardinal questions of line which have been the basis
of the estrangement between your Party and our Movement and instead
to use secondary criticisms – whose content is camouflaged and/or
left as swear words rather than substantive criticisms – is not
an MLM method of waging two-line struggle. It is a method that is
only good for spreading confusion among the rank and file and
for preventing them from consciously monitoring the line and practice
of their leadership….
You charge RIM with not acting “on the numerous possibilities that
have developed in the past ten years”. But speak openly and frankly:
what do you mean by this? Does this mean that RIM saw new “serious
alignments” taking shape after the break-up of the Soviet social-imperialist
bloc but was not willing to liquidate its line and jump on the bandwagon?
And was not willing to grade the international communist movement
on the basis of the bits and pieces of Marxism each grouping appears
to uphold? Do you think we should have changed our evaluation of
who is Marxist and who is revisionist in the world in order to be
able “to act on the numerous possibilities that have developed in
the past ten years”? Or what do you mean by “pragmatism”? If RIM
was “pragmatist” now, it would be making a lot of alliances with
all kinds of forces calling themselves Marxist-Leninist regardless
of their position on dividing-line struggles concerning the history
of the international communist movement. Please spare us; we are
unable to make such “serious contributions”. We want to win a new
society, not give the old one a face-lift. That is why we put decisive
importance on clarifying who is Marxist and who is revisionist….
…[W]e call upon you to substantiate and clearly state why the International
Conference of Marxist-Leninists “demonstrates a positive tendency”
over RIM. Even though there are parties within the International
Conference of Marxist-Leninists that we consider MLM parties, notably
the Communist Party of the Philippines and Communist Party of India
(Marxist-Leninist) (People’s War), the main feature of this international
grouping is that it consists of Maoist parties on the one end and
revisionists on the other end. At first this group included the
notorious counter-revolutionary Patria Roja from Peru, which has
distinguished itself by opposing the People’s War in that country.
As of the International Conference of Marxist-Leninists’s Fifth
Conference, the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninists),
which has been part of several reactionary governments in Nepal
and was directly entrusted with the suppression of the People’s
War there, was a member in good standing. The International Conference
of Marxist-Leninists’ basis of unity and method of uniting is structured
to allow such an alliance. Therefore, despite whatever intentions,
it cannot serve the regrouping of genuine revolutionary communists
world-wide. It cannot fulfil the requirements of the proletarian
revolution, the need to forge and strengthen genuine communist vanguards
in every country. Because this means to be armed with the fullest
and most scientifically correct understanding achieved by the proletariat
to date – Marxism‑Leninism‑Maoism. The International
Conference of Marxist-Leninists can in no way serve the goal of
the formation of a communist international of a new type. In fact
it does not accept the validity of that goal…. (See AWTW
2000/26 for the Committee of RIM’s critique of the Resolutions of
the Fifth International Conference of Marxist-Leninists.)
It is true that we considered the Resolutions of the Fifth Conference
as an overall positive advance. But why? Because for the first time
the International Conference of Marxist-Leninists took a clear position
against the revisionist rulers in China and upheld Mao Tsetung’s
development of Marxism and many other correct new directions. You
will agree that for the parties that kept quiet for so long on the
capitalist nature of China and the turning point of 1976, this was
an advance. However, it is quite a regression for your Party to
join the International Conference of Marxist-Leninists. It is not
an advance but an unfortunate setback….
Conclusion
The attempts to undermine the Declaration and RIM went hand
in hand with muddying the line of Ibrahim Kaypakkaya in order to
blur and modify TKPML’s basic political line. All this caused confusion
among the ranks of the Party. Many difficulties and problems of
revolution — such as the setbacks suffered – were misused to strengthen
a centrist line.
…Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought [today MLM] is the basic compass
that charts the road ahead. It is this basic orientation that is
embodied by the Declaration of RIM [supplemented by Long
Live MLM!]. By persevering on this path, strengthening the unity
of the proletariat on a world scale as well as its contingents in
each country, by striving to correctly assimilate the lessons of
the past, we can march ahead victoriously!” … (Committee of RIM
message – see AWTW 1985/3).
Comrades: Fourteen years is a long time to wait for your response.
The conditions are now favourable for the broad ranks of the TKPML
to unite under a correct MLM line and a single organisational centre.
And this will happen as the major erroneous lines that caused such
damage in the TKPML are repudiated. We call on the comrades of the
TKP/ML to sweep away the cobwebs of the past erroneous lines and
fight wholeheartedly to put Marxism-Leninism-Maoism clearly in command
of the revolution in Turkey, which the masses of your country and
around the world so desperately needs.
Committee
of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement
Endnotes
1 See the preface
to the Turkish edition of the RIM Declaration published by
TKPML in 1984 and the Report of the Fifth Plenum of the Second TKPML
Central Committee (CC).
2 Since
1993 our Movement has adopted Maoism instead of Mao Tsetung Thought.