17 mar 2013

The question of Hugo Chávez in the ICM

Submitted by Anonyme (non vérifié)

According dialectical materialism, there is neither “cause”, nor “consequence”, but transformation. The death of Chavez has therefore not “caused” a new situation, but is a historical fact which is also a step in a process of transformation of the International Communist Movement which moves to more complexity.

Of course, this is more the case in countries linked in a way or another to the question of bolivarism. All the countries in South America are concerned, but bolivarism is the ideology of a bureaucratic capitalist faction turned not in the direction of the USA, but of some others imperialist and expansionist powers (Russia, China, etc.).

But France is also concerned: if France is on side in imperialist competition with the imperialist USA, it is on the other side also a partner of them, and the most aggressive part of bourgeoisie wishes to stop this partnership, to move to a Moscow – Berlin – Paris axis.

That is why the majority of the far right appreciated Chavez, and that is why the “left front” - with the revisionist Communist Party but also Jean-Luc Mélenchon, populist leader (11,1% last year at the presidential elections) – totally supported Chavez.

What appears here is the old question: is imperialism a “global system”, which is unified? This is the classical guevarist conception, which negates the counter-revolutionary dimension of revisionism.

Or is there an imperialism competition? And this is the classical Maoist conception.

The reactions of the former “Maoist” organizations in India and Nepal

It is interesting to note that the organizations that upheld the New Democratic Revolution, but turned into peace agreement, the negation of People's War, all greeted Chavez.

In India, two organizations pretend to follow the legacy of the People's War initiated at the beginning of the 1970's, whereas they negate the People's War.

This is the case of the “CPI (ML) Liberation”, which “mourns the death of Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, and salutes his legacy of struggle against neoliberal polices and US imperialism”.

This is also the case of the “CPI-ML” (Red Star), which explains that “Chavez came up with policies opposing imperialism and throwing out the multinationals from Venezuela. His example inspired a series of anti-imperialist uprisings in Latin America which have now brought to power anti-imperialist forces in many of the countries there”.

In Nepal, we find also the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist); the nepali Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai, participated in a ceremony for Chavez, greeting him as an example.

On his side Ram Karki, which is its chief of the international department, spoke for a loss for the cause for 21st century socialism.

This is all not a surprise: the ideology of a bureaucratic capitalist faction can not be criticized by those who are acting precisely in the same way.

The position of Odio de Clase

The Odio de Clase collective took in one week two standpoints, which differ radically from Maoism. This collective from Spain rejected prachandism, but formulated two positions that rejoin it:

a) The first step was the announcement by this collective, at the beginning of march, that it has decided to consider Syria as an “oppressed nation”, which must be supported as a whole against imperialist aggression.

The Odio de Clase collective, explaining this, recognized that it was not the common view of the Maoists, its position was “counter-current to the majority of Maoist organizations.”

b) The second was the support to Chavez when his death was announced. The Odio de Clase collective considered that “Chavez also had progressive aspects and faced imperialism”.

The Odio de Clase collective attacked also the Communist Party of Ecuador – Reconstruction Committee as being “trotskyites” playing the role of “fifth column of the reaction” by considering Chavez as a fascist.

The Odio de Clase Collective explained so that “Chavez for Venezuela's poor is an improvement and this is denied by illuminated sectarians”.

The problem is here easy to understand. The “anti-imperialist” line of the Odio de Clase collective doesn't reject here only the position of the Communist Party of Ecuador – Reconstruction Committee – it rejects also the classical position of Maoism about peronism, khomeinism, kemalism, bolivarism, etc.

Once that the door of supporting an “anti-imperialist” trend is open, then there is no place for the People's War.

Each People's War which began in the world, from the Philippines to Peru, from Turkey to Bangladesh, was based on the consideration that the oppressed country was by nature facing fascism.

Rejecting that the oppressed countries are fascist countries – a fascism of course really different from the version that can exist in imperialist countries – means rejecting the strategy of liberation in the oppressed country, against bureaucratic capitalism and feudalism!

The document of the CPE – CR

On the 11 of march, the Communist Party of Ecuador – Reconstruction Committee published a document called: “Fighting or defending Chavism: a struggle between Marxism and revisionism”.

According to the CPE – RC, “The struggle against the fascist regime of Chavez - Maduro in Venezuela has moved itself directly into the communist movement and the revolutionary international, it is a struggle between Marxism and revisionism.

In this struggle, the communists and revolutionaries can not give an inch, because if it is nothing strange or disturbing that Chavez is defended from the positions of hoxhaism, trotskyism, anarchism, prachandism, etc., but it is something that can not be permitted that some calling themselves Maoists claim to defend the fascist – corporatist process of Chavez - Maduro in Venezuela, allegedly from “Maoists” positions; i.e. we must fight the new revisionism, which is Maoist word and opportunist in the facts”.

The CPE – RC explained then the connection of Venezuela to Russia, criticizing also the position of the Maoist Communist Party of Italy for its wrong consideration about Chavez: “With such low political ideological the MCP Italy aims to lead the reconstruction of the RIM?”

It notes that the erroneous position of the Communist Party of Philippines can lead the People's War there to its defeat; it rejects the position of the Odio de Clase Collective.

The CPE – RC considers also that:

“From the red line of Maoism, a handful of communist parties and revolutionary organizations have spoken out in open combat against Chávez regime characterized as fascist and pawn of imperialism, and for the democratic revolution of new type in Venezuela.

These are not only statements for now, they are part of the revolutionary strategic line of such revolutionary parties.

In that direction have pronounced themselves the Communist Party Marxist-Leninist-Maoist of France, the Communist Party of Peru, the Communist Party of Ecuador Sol - Rojo, the Organization of Workers of Afghanistan Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, principally Maoist, the Communist Party of Ecuador - Reconstruction Committee and other organizations in Turkey and Bangladesh.

We welcome this important grouping of the red line, that while it is not organic is ideological; is being constituted an international revolutionary trend of the Maoists on important and topical issues of the Communist movement and class struggle.”

A turning point for the Maoists worldwide?

The present situation may be a turning point for Maoists worldwide.

The Maoist Communist Party of Italy tries to rebuild a Maoist international, on the basis of centrism; by rejecting the conception of bureaucratic capitalism, it proves once more that its ideological level is weak, because this question is fundamental.

And it means that a new “international” formed under its initiative would not contain the Maoist conception of bureaucratic capitalism – it would be directly revisionist.

On the other side, the Odio de Clase collective was a part of the anti-centrist position.

In greeting even the Maoist Communist Party of Italy for its position on Chavez, the Odio de Clase collective practiced a kind of political suicide, because it could not not know that this support to the main centrist force could certainly be accepted by genuine revolutionaries.

It is not possible to reject the Maoist Communist Party of Italy as centrist on one side and then praise it.

We need to know now the positions of the anti-Centrist organizations, in particular of the Unión Obrera Comunista (MLM) – Colombia.

 But let's remember also that this party took a correct position, in a document with the Partido Comunista del Ecuador – Sol Rojo and Partido Comunista (Marxista Leninista) Panamá, in a Joint declaration against the Summit of the Americas, in april 2012:

“Achieve such victories involves an uncompromising struggle against opportunism of fake communist parties, of revisionists and opportunists of all stripes, which divert the masses towards parliamentarism, compromising them with the false democracy of the exploiters, in the illusion of taking possession of the reactionary state without destroying it, with the support of false socialism of the governments of Chavez in Venezuela, of Correa in Ecuador and of Morales in Bolivia, hiding their subservient role to the old reactionary state, and using their fierce armed power against the people and the true revolutionaries, to maintain the semi-colonial imperialist domination, to ensure the dictatorship of the exploiting class, and to preserve their privilege of living in the exploitation of the work of the masses.”