On the “old” archived website of the KKE, was in 2011 published,.the article ”The International role of China”, writtten by Elisseos Vagenas, member of the CC of KKE.
On the Spanish website “ la Mancha Obrera” was mentioned on 10 april 2014 in the article “En defensa del pueblo chino: Respuesta a Elisseos Vagenas (1º Parte), 10 abril, 2014“ (so three years later) that an extensive critic was written by Alexandré Garcia. Apparently not taking positions, it seemed to me that the position of the editors of “La Mancha Obrera” is in favour of the conclusions made by Alexandré Garcia.
For Alexandré, so is said, in the article “The international role of China” the KKE-cadre made an analyse of the whole Chinese revolution. And for Alexandré, so is said (and it seemed to me , supported by “la Mancha Obrera”) it is proven that the positions of the KKE about the whole revolution in China inclusive their position about the actual situation in China are 'just' a “left dogmatic version” of the revisionism in the CPSU, which started by Chruchov on the 20th congress of the CPSU.; The explicit proof for Alexandré, so is mentioned is the position of the KKE that would put the “iron corset of class struggle on the policy of alliances” with the position “all is imperialism” putting on the same level the EU, US, Japan and the countries Brasil, Russia, South Africa ..... and China.
The second proof is, for Alexandré Garcia (so is mentioned – and supported by la Mancha Obrera?) that the KKE is promoting herself as “guiding party” (as would have done – to Alexandré Garcia – the CPSU.
The analysis of Alexandré Garcia (or the first part of that analysis) can be found here: “En defensa del pueblo chino. Respuesta a Elisseos Vagenas (1ª parte)
I noticed that In his analysis Alexandré Garcia is referring to the WPB or/and his former president Ludo Martens and the position the WPB would have about China and the Chinese revolution and the situation in China today.
Well, this gives me the opportunity to make my judgement about this statement, being for years a militant of the WPB (expelled in 2005)
First I formulated what I saw as purpose of the article of Elisseos Vagenas in: 20-05-14Will the WPB/PVDA/PTB join the accusation that the KKE is (still) not free of 'Chruchov-Breznjevian “left”-formulated, revisionism'?(1)
Critic of Alexandré Garcia on “dogmatism” of KKE is formulated in dogmatic phrases
Then I made my analysis of the “Marxist character” of the analysis of Alexandré Garcia in 14-06-14 Will the WPB/PVDA/PTB join the accusation that the KKE is (still) not free of 'Chruchov-Breznjevian “left”-formulated, revisionism'?(2)
Instead of a concrete analysis of, or even critic on the article of Elisseos Vagenas Alexandré made an historical analogy: the actual critic of the KKE on the CPC is analogue to the CPSU-critic (of Chruchov and later Breznjev)) on the CPC (silently estimating that the positions of the CPC in the years '56-'66 are the same is in 2011, when Elisseos Vagenas wrote his article)....and Chruchov an Breznjev were revisionists....so the KKE have “analogue” revisionist posittions. And Alexandré, estimating that the purpose of Elisseos Vagnas was to write an article about the whole history of the Chine
se revolution, is considering that the KKE (as did Chruchov and Breznjev.and – as is supposing Alexandré Garcia – also did Stalin) is concluding that the Chinese revolution is not a “correct” revolution, not following the Soviet-receipee.
Subjective presumption of why Elisseos Vagenas(KKE) would have writtten his article
But to me, (see my first article ...) Elisseos Vagenas made indeed not an analysis about the global Chinese revolution. Neither made he a judgment about the Polemic between the CCP and the CPSU.(1956-1966). Further affirmed the KKE, so also Elisseos Vagenas, perhaps not so concretely in his article but certainly in other texts (even approved on congresses), the revisionism of Chruchov.
It was – as I see it - not an analysis what is concerning the evolution of the political line of the CCP under the strong influence of Mao Zedong (but also sometimes influenced by a more “social-democratic” Liu Chaochi, who was a long time the president of the CCP), and later (certainly after the death of Mao) the CCP under strong influence of Deng Xiaoping.
Probably in other texts Vagenas (or the KKE in texts which are certainly approved by congresses) has affirmed that Breznjev was not “a return to Stalin” but just another form of the same revisionism of Chruchov.
But COMPARING the external policy of China (since the seventies) with that of Breznjev, the conclusion for him is clear: when you talk about imperialism or at least hegemonism by Breznjev.....the external policy of China was in the late seventies (so certainly after the death of Mao) and is today, worse. When Alexandré did not agreed with these conclusions he should have concretely countered the arguments of Elisseos Vagenas. He did not (he promised to do so in a future second part of his analysis....
And what is concerning ACTUAL China Elisseos give a lot analysis of concrete facts in order to prove (at least for the KKE) that China is imperialist. So when you will prove that China is “still” socialist you have to contradict in a elaborated and concrete way his analysis....and that is what Alexandré Garcia not has done...at least not in his “first part”.He promised to do this in his second part.
But even than remains the fact that his analysis is a strongly by dogmatism influenced analysis and his conclusion that Elisseos (and with him the KKE) has a problem with dogmatism or even revisionism is reversing to himself! In fact he is -to me – IDEALIST (instead of Materialist) Having the subjective IDEA: “Elisseos Vagenas is revisionist with his accusation of the actual imperialist character” he is in a dogmatic (eclectic) way searching for Marxist-sounding arguments to prove this.
Alexandré Garcia made reference to mutual CONTRADICTING WPB-positions
This dogmatism which is a “common disease” in the international communist movement, when it become an overall system in the leadership of a party, and then submitting the whole party to this way of “analysing” ...it become revisionism. And that is what happened in the WPB, “the teacher of the negative example”.
The refferences to the WPB in the analysis of Alexandré Garcia give my the opportunity to show ho the mechanism of entering revisionism into the party is functioning.
In “30-07-14Will the WPB/PVDA/PTB join the accusation that the KKE is (still) not free of 'Chruchov-Breznjevian “left”-formulated, revisionism'?(3)“ I explain the contradictions in the positions of the “whole WPB” about China and the positions of Ludo Martens (former president of the WPB) about China.
Normally there should be no contradictions as the positions formulated by Ludo Martens were affirmed on the 4th (1991)and 5th congress (1995)....but not really good assimilated by party-members.....
This formal affirmation and non-assimilation make the following development easier:
The analysis of the contradictions in the CPC, and about the dangerous development of a revisionist tendency within the leadership of the CPC, the critic on the revisionist aspects in the theoretical defence of the policy of “reform and opening” started in 1978 under leadership of Deng Xiaoping, which was mainly done by Ludo Martens but afterwards were affirmed on the 4th (1991)and 5th (1995) congress...(read.03-08-14 Will the WPB/PVDA/P
TB join the accusation that the KKE is (still) not free of 'Chruchov-Breznjevian “left”-formulated, revisionism'?(4)this is all erased out of the collective memory of the party by Boudewijn Deckers in 2003. How it is done concretely I explain in 25-08-14 Will the WPB/PVDA/PTB join the accusation that the KKE is (still) not free of 'Chruchov-Breznjevian “left”-formulated, revisionism'?(5)
“Deletion” of collective memory and collective (historical) knowledge, a CONSCIOUS practice of Boudewijn Deckers
“Deletion” of collective memory of the WPB, negating several existing study- and formation-documents which normally were advised to study by EVERY member..... and now apparently totally “forgotten” by Boudewijn Deckers, this can not be other than a CONSCIOUS practice of Boudewijn Deckers. He was one of the founders of AMADA (Alle Macht Aan De Arbeiders – All Power To The Workers) in 1970 a communist organisation which “prepared” the founding of the Workers Party of Belgium (the “new” communist party “replacing” the “old” Belgium Communist Party which was considered to be totally degenerated in revisionism. In 20-09-14 Will the WPB/PVDA/PTB join the accusation that the KKE is (still) not free of 'Chruchov-Breznjevian “left”-formulated, revisionism'?(6) I prove how the CCP since Deng Xiaoping use Marxist-sounding phraseology referring to document which were once advised to study and how Boudewijn Deckers is just repeating (and so supporting) without any critic the revisionist “analyses” of the CCP. (Deng Xiaoping, and the official actual line of the CCP made also historical falsifications, see "Notes...." in frame)
“Deletion” of collective memory; filled in by revisionism
This “deletion” allowed to another cadre, Peter Franssen, to “fill that political/ideological gap” with pseudo-Marxist adhesion to the revisionism of Deng Xiaoping.
I proved the revisionist character of the analysis of Peter Franssen already earlier.
On my other weblog “wetenschappelijksocialisme.blogspot.com” I started the analysis of "Contribution to the International Symposium held in Wuhan, People’s Republic of China, 13 - 15 October 2005 - Friedrich Engels and scientific socialism in contemporary China".
On thursday, 17 November 2005, 12h40 it was published on the English website of the PVDA/WPB (wpb.be, a website which is closed after the 8thcongress in 2008.)
It was announced with the introduction:
“It is 110 years since Friedrich Engels, the man who along with his companion Karl Marx laid the foundations of scientific socialism, passed away. To commemorate his death, an international symposium was held in the Chinese city of Wuhan. The organisers were the University of Wuhan, the Central Compilation and Translation Bureau of the CC of the Communist Party of China and the Academy of Social Sciences of China. 32 Chinese speakers made contributions, as well as 13 foreigners. At the request of the organisers, Peter Franssen, journalist with the Belgian weekly Solidaire and researcher at the Institute for Marxist Studies, wrote a contribution, which you can read in full below.”
I did my analysis of the revisionism of Peter Franssen in a series of articles on my old weblog beginning with “20 juli 2008. Revisionism,the bourgeoisie inside the communist movement. (1)“
In a dogmatic way Alexandré Garcia is mentioning the presumed position of the WPB towards China, seeing no contradiction between the earlier (1995) point of view of the WPB and the later (after 2003) point of view.
But he is excused as apparently not anyone IN the WPB noticed this “change”, by lack of political alertness.
Notes about concrete historical developments in China proving the“doublespeak” of Deng Xiaoping
Some notes about historical developments in China which will show already some “doublespeak” of Deng Xiaoping, historical falsifications to which WPB-cadre Boudewijn Deckers is totally blind.
I found this in one of the books, in the WPB when I became member.... following the formation-course for candidate-member: Wind in the Tower of Han Suyin.(read here)
Why is this “discussion” so important to me
This concrete example of an ideological and political “change” IN the WPB, consciously done by a “renegade” cadre and NOT noticed by a lack of awareness of the majority of the members is a “negative teacher” of how revisionism can develop in a communist party and step by step transform the party into a REFORMIST party (with a reformism formulated in formal Marxist-sounding phrases.
I think that this deterioration of the WPB has to be a warning to all (themselves considering as) communist parties. Avoid dogmatism, eclecticism and the not-historical-materialist practice of “historical analogy”, make concrete analyses of concrete situations leading to concrete elaborated revolutionary strategies....