These last days, the Odio de Clase collective produced a document announcing the end of a stage and the beginning of a new one. In fact, in this document, the Odio de Clase collective tries to manage to get out of the terrible contradiction it has put itself in.

The Odio de Clase collective managed above all a blog that played an international role for different Maoist organizations to connect themselves, and among it to oppose a front against prachandism and centrism.

The Odio de Clase collective has indeed also its own identity, deeply rooted in the Spanish communist culture, marked by the antifascist experience of the 1930's and the dictatorship of franquism.

And in Spain, Maoism was never able to exist as such; the “marxist-leninist” approach, mixing hoxhaism, guevarism, hard unionism (with especially a “proletarian rock”, “redskins” culture), always had the hegemony.

It is significant that those last years, the hoxhaist-redskins “Reconstruccion Comunista” managed to build strongly itself.

The contradiction between Maoism and the “Spanish” “ML” tradition could only grow; those last weeks, it became unbearable for Odio de Clase.

The first act to get out of it was the praised publication of the statement on Chavez of the Maoist Communist Party of Italy – a open political suicide as this party was all the time denounced before as centrist.

The second act is this new document of Odio de Clase, consisting mainly in an attack against the teachings of the Communist Party of Peru.

The Odio de Clase collective quits the field of international polemic

In its document, the Odio de Clase collective explains in a frank manner that:

“At ODC, which is nothing more than a very small group (we never bragged about anything else), we have been very actively involved in open ideological war that develops between different MLM organizations at the international level to impose a particular political line or a particular MLM regrouping of forces.

Today we decided to abandon this war and continue on our way.”

This is nothing more than a capitulation in the struggle opened against prachandism and centrism. And this is impossible: the questions of the international polemic are not “abstract”, but full of use for the national work.

The perception of Odio de Clase towards the debates in the ICM

To clear up its decision, the Odio de Clase collective gives its point of view about the polemics existing.

It considers that it “has spent a lot of energy and effort into this ideological battle that eventually pretty burned us”, whereas on the other side there were much too few results, and worst, according the Odio de Clase collective, “organizations that shared certain positions [with Odio de Clase] not have stood by us when others have mounted a campaign of harassment and demolition against us”.

This is of course a direct hint to the sharp criticism and attacks of the Communist Party of Ecuador – Reconstruction Committee against the Odio de Clase collective.

But the answer to it should be a greater defence of Maoism, not a capitulation. Either the criticism is false or wrong and then time shows it, because the facts become clear. Or the criticism is correct and then there is a rectification or a self-criticism.

Odio de Clase shows here its lack of sureness and self-possession; it is impossible to be in trouble because of “criticism”, as anyway against the bourgeoisie, communists are always and everywhere under the “criticism” of the enemy.

The Odio de Clase collective's attacks against the teachings of the PCP

Accompanying its position, the Odio de Clase collective raises a brutal attack against the teachings of the PCP.

In its document, Odio de Clase openly attacks the “guiding thought”, explaining that “without denying the role of leaders, we are against excessive and disproportionate praise of specific individuals. Respect this, we say clearly that we do not agree with the so-called “guiding thoughts” “Roads”.”

This is not an explanation, it is just absurd, as Maoists never praised “individuals”; the Communist Party of Peru never praised Gonzalo's socks' color or its preferred fruit ; in fact, it was always explained that there are no “individuals” in general but a humanity whose thinking is the reflect of the movement of matter.

The Odio de Clase collective's position here is a mere caricature of the explanation made of the principle of thought. The question that exists really here is: does the Odio de Clase collective recognizes the law of contradiction, or not ?

The question of the positions about Chavez

To justify its position against the principle of “thought”, the Odio de Clase collective mentions the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and the Communist Party of the Philippines, and also the TKP/ML (Communist Party of Turkey / Marxist-Leninist).

The Odio de Clase collective present them as a “counter-line” to the one of the Communist Party of Peru and Gonzalo.

Is it logic? Yes, it is.

The Communist Party of the Philippines and the Communist Party of India (Maoist) (i.e. at this time the MCC and the CPIML-PW), with the TKP/ML, produced in the 1990's the review “Vanguard”, to form an opposition to the RIM; they never accepted the positions of the Communist Party of Peru, their approach was radically different.

The Odio de Clase collective discovers here something that was clear already in the 1990's – a proof that its interpretation of the positions is correct, but not its anti-scientific conclusion.

The Chavez pretense

Let's be clear: the Odio de Clase collective always had a very strong “anti-imperialist” line; the Chavez case is only a pretense for the Odio de Clase collective to resolve its own contradiction.

The Odio de Clase collective explains this like this, showing its manner of “moving away” of the possibility of a frank, clear, scientific position of Maoism:

“We have never defended Chavez, only we have recognized and expressed respect for his confrontation with U.S. imperialism, the defense of national independence of Venezuela and its policies to help the poor.

We do not agree with the interpretation of "bureaucratic capitalism" of the mechanical and dogmatic way they do many of the followers of Gonzalo Thought.”

And after that, Odio de Clase notes that the CPI(Maoist) stressed quickly the anti-US imperialism aspect of Chavez in a statement, and then explains that:

“So all indications are that surely the position of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) is closer to the Communist Party of the Philippines on the issue Chavez that of those that describe him as fascist. And certainly the position of the CPI (Maoist) is closer to us than the lords of CR PCE.”

What does it mean? That the Odio de Clase collective came on the positions of the Communist Party of the Philippines, the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and the TKP/ML, which are marked by:

- relativism, the refusal of a single Maoist center, the refusal of a universal scientific Maoism;

- the total independence of the organizations and parties on each leveland its freedom of any interpretation ;

- an opening to anti-Maoist forces in the name of anti-imperialism, anti-imperialist front, etc.;

- a categorical rejection of the teachings of the PCP;

- a passage from Marxism-Leninism to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism that stays unclear, made unwillingly;

- a conception of People's War as a “technique”.

The Odio de Clase collective rejects openly Maoism as a science

Logically, after the assertion of the value of what is “relativism” for us, the Odio de Clase collective can affirm that the PCP is just a position like another in the MLM movement, and that some in the MLM movement tries to act as it would be the only correct conception, that all the rest would be revisionist, in particular the People's Wars in India, in the Philippines, in Turkey.

It would be not correct as those People's Wars would exist, whereas the “arrogance” of the PCP partisans is vain, when some ex partisans of the PCP are now totally reactionaries, for peace agreement, etc., after having been arrogant in the same way before.

It is to note that the Indian comrades explain precisely the same and traditionally reject any valorization of any individual in the history of Maoism in India. The explanation for this is that the Indian comrades never manage to forge a strong line and the collapses that happened produced much desolation (like capitulation, betrayal, etc- it should also be noted here that the valorization of Kishenji is a notable exception in the history of Indian Maoists).

This is not scientific; it is Maoism as a mere “practice”, rejecting all the central importance of the direction, of the Leadership carrying dialectical materialism. It is nothing more than revolutionary syndicalism, armed reformism, etc.

The Odio de Clase collective rejects two line struggle

The conclusion of the Odio de Clase collective is of course that there can be no pretension to be scientific, because it would be not correct. It says so:

“As we say: no gentlemen, on that topic in the MLM movement there are different positions and you do not own the absolute truth. Your interpretation of the MLM does not match with the comrades who develop People's War in India, in the Philippines and in Turkey.

Why do you say that you own the absolute truth? Why is your MLM right and defending the others wrong?

To us, it seems on the contrary that your positions on this issue play the game of the reaction and unintentionally, by its narrow and mechanistic dogmatism, convert involuntarily themselves in a fifth-column of Yankee imperialism.”

It is nothing else than the refusal of the ideological battle, and so the negation of the importance of the struggles done until yet, against prachandism and centrism!

Prachandists did say the same, centrists do say the same!

As to the thesis of Maoism as a "fifth column" of U.S. imperialism, it is what the revisionists say since 1960!

The intolerable position of the CPML of Panama with the ridiculous Sandino case

After the new position of the Odio de Clase collective, came the “Sandino case”, a ridiculous affair.

What happened is the following: on the website Luminoso Futuro, which expresses the point of view of the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) of Panama, was publish an article explaining that Stalin has “defended” Sandino in Nicaragua as a patriot and not as a “petty bourgeois”.

The Odio de Clase collective published this article consisting in sentences that Stalin should have pronounced, and as a comment the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) of Panama added:

“Was Chavez a fascist, is chavism a fascist movement? Primo, so far there is no consensus in the International Communist Movement (MLM). Some say yes, some no.”

Such formulation is a direct attack against Maoism and an intolerable relativism. It is also an insult to all the armed struggle carried by the Maoists in the oppressed countries during the 1960's-1970's, following the call of Mao Zedong to struggle against their semi-colonial semi-feudal regime.

It is possible – and wrong certainly, but this is not the question here - to explain that this thesis may be wrong, or that the conditions changed, etc., in a sort of post-Maoism.

But the fact that the classical Maoist conception is hidden shows that all of this nothing more than a lie. This is nothing more than a revisionist attack to falsify Mao's teachings.

The errors of the Odio de Clase collective

In its position, the Odio de Clase collective attacks namely only the Communist Party of Ecuador – Reconstruction Committee, but the thesis about bureaucratic capitalism does not belong to this party, it is just Maoism.

In launching an attack against the ideology of Communist Party of Ecuador – Reconstruction Committee (and not only this party), the Odio de Clase collective acted not in a democratic manner, as it was also an attack against signatories of the joint statements made in the past with it, signatories having the same ideology as the Communist Party of Ecuador – Reconstruction Committee.

In doing this, the Odio de Clase collective acted oppositely of the interests of the struggle against prachandism and centrism.

The Odio de Clase collective should have cared about the criticism of Communist Party of Ecuador – Reconstruction Committee in a different manner and not turned towards relativism, which is the nucleus of the centrist approach.