Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Anti-Revisionist Struggle and Cultural Revolution

Anti-Revisionist Struggle and Cultural Revolution

Ratings: (0)|Views: 104 |Likes:
Published by Chad Valderamos

More info:

Published by: Chad Valderamos on Jun 09, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/11/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Anti-revisionist struggle and cultural revolution:Consequence to the Communist Party of the PhilippinesDelivered at the International Forum on the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolutionand Lessons to the Working Class MovementThe Netherlands, 1 April 2007I wish to speak on the significance and relevance of the Marxist-Leninist struggle against modernrevisionism since 1956 and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR) since 1966. And I wish todeal with this large subject by examining the impact and consequences of the aforesaid historic eventsto the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP).May I declare at the outset that the resoluteness, militancy, resilience and victories of the CPP havebeen immeasurably inspired by the anti-revisionist struggle and the GPCR led by Comrade Mao. Thesehave contributed to the strong foundation of the CPP, its invincibility and victories in the course of struggle in the last 38 years and its unwavering confidence in the resurgence of socialism and theultimate victory of communism.The Struggle Against Modern RevisionismIn 1963 the Filipino revolutionaries began to sum up and analyze the historical experience of theCommunist Party of the Philippine Islands (1930 to 1938) and the old merger party of the Communistand Socialist Parties (1938 to 1968). We sought to resume the armed revolution and to know why thishad failed previously.We were guided by the Marxist-Leninist theory of state and revolution and we were certainly deeplyinfluenced by the works of Comrade Mao on the new democratic revolution through people's war.Revolutionary storms were rapidly developing in Southeast Asia and elsewhere.
 
At that time, the struggle between the Marxist-Leninist line and the line of modern revisionism hadalready broken out, mainly between the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and CommunistParty of China (CPC. We the Filipino proletarian revolutionaries stood up for the Marxist-Leninist line,even as some of the key cadres in the old merger party insisted that the CPSU and the CPC were not incontradiction over fundamental revolutionary principles but were debating merely about methods of struggle.Such cadres would later become well-defined as the Lava revisionist renegades in 1967. Having failed torebuild the old merger party since it was crushed in the years of 1950 to 1952 and practically liquidatedsince 1957, they had no choice for a while but to have amicable relations with the proletarianrevolutionaries who were leading the newly-formed branches of the old merger party, the major massorganizations and the resurgent anti-imperialist, anti-feudal and civil libertarian mass movement.We the proletarian revolutionaries were determined to develop the mass movement in order to carryout the new democratic revolution through protracted people's war under the leadership of the workingclass party. We were strongly opposed to the Khruschovite revisionist line of bourgeois populism ("partyof the whole people" and "state of the whole people") and bourgeois pacifism ("peaceful transition","peaceful competition" and "peaceful co-existence").We held the position that Khrushchov had vilified and totally negated Stalin under the pretext of rejecting the "cult of personality" in order to attack Marxism-Leninism and socialism. We became awareof Comrade Mao's criticism in April 1956 of Khrushchov's anti-Stalin speech in February 1956 and thedebate on the issues in the 1957 and 1960 Moscow meetings of communist and workers' parties. Weeagerly studied the wide range of issues that emerged in the open debate between the CommunistParty of China (CPC) and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the early 1960s.We became aware of the decentralizing and confused reorganizations done in the Soviet party, state,economy and culture in order to subvert Marxism-Leninism and socialism. We saw as wrongKhrushchov's admiration for Titoite revisionism, which included rejection of land reform and centralplanning. We saw through the economism and opportunism in Khrushchov's promise of achievingcommunism in twenty years by changing the material and cultural foundation of Soviet society throughbourgeois economic reforms.
 
We were indignant over Khrushchov's policies towards other countries. He cancelled all the agreementsand blueprints of economic cooperation with China in retaliation for the anti-revisionist line of the CPCin the ideological debate. He refused to extend effective support to the preparations and efforts of theVietnamese people to wage a war of national liberation against US imperialism and its puppets. Heencouraged the revisionists in Eastern Europe to take power and change policies. He promoted thepractice of neocolonialism in relations with the countries in Eastern Europe, and Asia.As a result of obvious bunglings, Khrushchov was deposed and replaced by Brezhnev in 1964. Some of the old cadres who had believed that the debate between the CPSU and the CPC was only aboutmethods of struggle thought that the ascendance of Brezhnev meant a consolidation of the Marxist-Leninist ideology and the practice of socialist revolution and construction because of the renewed Sovietrevolutionary phrase-mongering and the recentralization of the ministries decentralized by Khruschov.We understood what Khrushchovism without Khrushchov meant. Brezhnev widened the revisionistbreaches made by Khrushchov on the ideological, political and organizational line of the Soviet party andon the socialist state, economy and culture even as he recentralized the bureaucracy for the purpose of bureaucrat monopoly capitalism and strengthened the Soviet military for the purpose of big powerpolitics and social imperialism.What had started as the petty bourgeois social base (including degenerate sections of the bureaucracyand intelligentsia, the new kulaks and merchants) generated the big bureaucrat monopoly bourgeoisieand its retinue of criminal big bourgeois in the private sector who manipulated and stole from stateenterprises and warehouses and who increased their role in domestic and foreign trade.The summing-up and analysis of the history of the old merger party matured among the proletarianrevolutionaries towards the end of 1965. Earlier the Executive Committee of the old merger hadassigned this speaker to draft the general report for a new congress of the old merger party. I includedthe evaluation of the old merger party in terms of the Marxist-Leninist ideological line, the generalpolitical line of people's democratic revolution and the organizational line of democratic centralism.The draft general report sparked a debate and a division in the old merger party between theproletarian revolutionaries or the Marxist-Leninists and the Lava revisionists. The issues involved mainlyhow the series of Lavaite leaders in the old merger party had caused one disaster after another, howthey had been afflicted by subjectivism and opportunism, how they failed to develop the Party, the

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->