Wer ist die MLPD ?

 

[Text in englischer Sprache]

Who is the MLPD ?

Excerpt of the

3rd part of the

Declaration of war against the Maoists

(12. 6. 2012)

Marxist-Leninist Party of Germany (MLPD)


The second European Maoist party about which we will reflect is the “ML”PD (in German: Marxistisch-Leninistische Partei Deutschlands - MLPD), which can be considered as the largest Maoist party in Germany.


Who is the MLPD?


The MLPD was founded in 1982 and recruited from various neo-revisionist elements. These circles appeared since 1970 - thus in a time when the KPD / ML [founded by Comrade Ernst Aust in 1968/69 - and which is now identical with the oldest section of our Comintern [SH]) - was in its construction process. The former leader of the MLPD, Willi Dickhut, was once a member of the first Central Committee of the KPD / ML. The MLPD is therefore originally a union of circles, which partly emerged from our former party members, and who tried to split the KPD/ML. Their goal was to hinder the development and strengthening of a true Bolshevik party of Lenin's and Stalin's type - on German soil and with the help of the ideology of Maoism.

The MLPD defends Mao Zedong as a "classics" of Marxism-Leninism and - from the very beginning - was guided by the revisionist general-line of Mao Zedong (published in 1963, June 14). The MLPD argues that China was "socialist" in lifetime of Mao Zedong and that capitalism was "restored" in China, after his death, after the so-called "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution".


The contradictions and the struggle between the MLPD and the KPD / ML increased in Germany in the same way and at the same time, such as between China and Albania, as between the Maoist and the Hoxhaist world movement. The MLPD and the KPD / ML embodied the organized struggle between Maoism and Hoxhaism on German soil for decades.

Meanwhile, the MLPD has nearly completely dropped its "Marxist-Leninist" mask and, in essence, the MLPD became an ordinary revisionist party both in theory and practice.


A considerable number of different political groups in Germany attempted to bridge these deep ideological contradictions between Maoism and Hoxhaism. In Germany there are different groups who estimate the MLPD as a "Marxist-Leninist" party though they criticize the mistakes of the MLPD. In Germany, there are diverse centrist-conciliatory positions towards the MLPD and this concerns also to the Turkish MLCP who is member of the ICOR. Thus this conciliatory position towards Maoism has to be combated as an international phenomenon. Hoxhaism cannot be reconciled with Maoism, neither on a national nor on a global scale. They are two antagonistic ideologies, namely the ideology of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Therefore, it can and will be no unity with the MLPD.


Maoism is an ideological instrument used by the world bourgeoisie, under the guise of "Marxism-Leninism," for the purpose to denounce the true Marxist-Leninists in the world as "sectarian" and "ultra-leftists", for the purpose to isolate them from the world proletariat, from the socialist world revolution. The MLPD says: "Whoever attacks Mao Zedong, attacks also the ideas of Marxism-Leninism. This is the core question". That's why the MLPD vilifies Comrade Enver Hoxha as a "liquidator", and why they treat him like a "revisionist", just to be in a better position to hide behind the MLPD's own revisionism. The MLPD has taken over the anti-Stalinist line of Mao Zedong and makes Stalin responsible for the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union (bureaucracy-accusations). And so we say to the Maoists, "Those who attack Stalin, also attack Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism-Hoxhaism!"


The MLPD considers the Mao Zedong-ideas as "the main feature of a Marxist-Leninist organization." In contrast, we Stalinists-Hoxhaists say that anti-Maoism is an essential feature of a true Marxist-Leninist organization: a party which gives to itself the name "Marxist-Leninist party", however which refuses to struggle against Maoism, can never be a genuine Marxist-Leninist party.


The MLPD is a product of the organizational circle-principle, which is based on Maoism and expanding internationally. Together with other organizations of the ICOR the MLPD tries to spread the Menshevik spirit of Mao Zedong-ideas onto an international level. This is an attack on the Bolshevik organizational principles of the Communist International of Lenin and Stalin, is against the world's Bolshevik principles of organization of the Comintern (SH) directed. The MLPD plays a not insignificant role in the globalization of the organizational Mensheviks circle-principle against the organizational principles of the Bolshevist world party, against the Comintern (SH).


The Chinese "Cultural Revolution" was directed against the principle of the leadership of the Bolshevik Party. The MLPD defended this "cultural revolution" and is therefore against the communist leadership of the masses. From the very beginning the MLPD in Germany has practiced worship of the spontaneity of the masses and the MLPD tries to expand this Maoist "mass-line" all over the world. Maoist mass struggle means nothing else than guidance by spontaneity instead of guidance by Marxism-Leninism, means guidance by the bourgeois ideology. The Maoist so-called "mass politics" is bourgeois tailism who is dressed in revolutionary slogans. Even if the MLPD is trying to globalize this "mass politics", this will change nothing to its counter-revolutionary character. This concerns especially the trade-union-politics of the Maoist MLPD. Lenin combated the economists who have tried to sacrifice the Communist Party as a free supplement to the trade unions. The MLPD condemned our revolutionary trade-union policy as "sectarian" and our RGO (Revolutionary Trade Union Opposition) as "ultra-left". So the MLPD takes side with the imperialist and fascist German Trade Union Federation (DGB), the main instrument of the monopoly bourgeoisie within the workers' movement. By the way, the chairman of the DGB is also chairman of the largest world organization of the yellow unions. On May 1, 2012, the MLPD writes: "Fortunately, the DGB has finally realized that the MLPD is a friendly organization."


Continuing with our analysis of the “ML”PD, we will now scrutinize the party’s participation at the 7th Conference of the ICMLPO which is divided in two parts: the first part consists of a “country report” while the second part consists of an historical account of the former Communist International seen from a Maoist point of view.


Starting with the first part of “ML”PD’s participation, we observe that it is mainly composed of Maoist boasting:


At the suggestion of the MLPD (…) in February at Bosch, then at Siemens, and in July at DaimlerChrysler, powerful company-wide strike days took place. (…) On July 5, 2004, 60,000 DaimlerChrysler workers went out on strike in a company-wide day of strike; 2,000 workers blocked a main traffic artery. (…) This characterizes the growing influence of the “ML”PG on the core of the class-militant industrial workers (…).”(ICMLPO, International Newsletter, nº 33, July, 2007, edition in English)


As to whether these “successes” of the “ML”PD were real or not, we don’t know. We wouldn’t be surprised if these words were nothing more than an enormous lie, because Maoists were always the masters of deceiving. But even if we admit that the German Maoists are saying the true, this only shows how much Maoism’s reactionary poison is spread within Europe’s most powerful imperialist country – Germany. This is a very worrying situation because the acquisition of an authentic revolutionary consciousness by the German workers and the establishment of the proletarian dictatorship in Germany are absolutely decisive for the triumph of socialist revolution in Europe and all over the world.

Nonetheless, it is in the second part of their participation that the German Maoists mainly display their counter-revolutionary and anti-Marxist character by harshly criticizing the former glorious Comintern of Lenin and Stalin:


Item 17 of Lenin’s proposal stated: “All decisions of the Communist International’s congresses and of its Executive Committee are binding on all affiliated parties” (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 211). (…) Accordingly, all parties were obligated to “everywhere build up a parallel illegal organization, which, at the decisive moment, will be in a position to help the Party fulfill its duty to the revolution” (ibid., p. 208).


But the building of parallel structures went far beyond that. (…) This department’s representatives had de facto authority over the representatives of the local CPs and increasingly were bound up with the organs of the Soviet secret services. They also coordinated training and propaganda in the Comintern and headed publications that had nothing to do with parties in the capitalist countries (…).


These structures were linked with the secret services and special agencies of the USSR and were ultimately controlled by them. (…) In practice, the ideological-political and organizational independence of the communist parties was undermined or even abolished by way of these parallel structures. Democratic centralism in the Comintern acquired bureaucratic-centralist features.” (ICMLPO, International Newsletter, nº 33, July, 2007, edition in English)


As can be seen, the “arguments” used by the German Maoists against the former Comintern of Lenin and Stalin are completely anarchistic. Accordingly with them, Comintern’s “mistake” was that it supposedly “undermined the ideological-political and organizational independence of the communist parties and turned them into appendixes of the Soviet secret services”. First of all, we must keep in mind that when the Maoists talk about “independence”, what they really mean is independence relatively to Marxism-Leninism and nothing more. What truly upsets the Maoists is the great example set by the former Comintern, which basing itself on the teachings of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism was able to unite the proletarian parties in benefit of the victory of socialism throughout the world. The Comintern founded by Lenin and Stalin represented what Maoists most hate: unconditional loyalty to genuine communist ideology. The Comintern of Lenin and Stalin always fought against the germination of bourgeois-revisionist tendencies within the ranks of the communist parties, and that’s why the Maoists say that the Comintern “undermined their independence”. Of course that the heroic and outstanding Comintern of Lenin and Stalin could never allow this Maoist “independence” which means nothing more than letting the communist parties capitulate in face of the pro-capitalist influences, thus jeopardizing the preservation and development of socialism.


It is crystal clear that this “criticism” entirely corresponds to the anarchistic origins of Maoism. Indeed, behind Maoists’ fake “concerns” about “independence”, we can easily perceive a furious anger towards the fierce proletarian discipline which characterized the Comintern’s work and activities and which was in total opposition to the anti-Marxist policy of bourgeois factions and to the anarchistic defense of the masses’ “spontaneous initiative” that are advocated by Maoism.


Finally, it is very interesting to note the depreciative manner in which the German Maoists refer to the Stalinist secret services. These secret services were one of the most valuable instruments for the defense of the Soviet proletarian dictatorship and they were totally right about exercising surveillance over the communist parties in order to avoid the infiltration of the class enemy within their ranks. It is obvious that the Maoists are so furious about the activities of Stalinist secret services because they are still deadly afraid of the socialist power which was behind those secret services.


In making such kind of criticisms, the German Maoists are not saying anything new; they are just repeating the infamous slanders and calumnies that the pro-capitalist reactionaries invent with the objective of denigrating the glorious Soviet proletarian dictatorship headed by comrade Stalin.

And the German Maoists go further with their anti-communist zeal, stating that:


Political mistakes and dirigism by the Executive Committee of the Comintern mainly were responsible for grave errors in the policies of the Communist Party of Germany, KPD. The Executive Committee was the initiator, for example, of the so-called RGO (Revolutionäre Gewerkschaftsopposition [Revolutionary Trade-Union Opposition]) policy.” (ICMLPO, International Newsletter, nº 33, July, 2007, edition in English)


So, now it is against the valiant Communist Party of Germany (KPD) led by proletarian hero Thalmann that the social-fascists of the “ML”PD are launching their attacks. They qualify KPD’s attitude towards the expulsion of communists from the German bourgeois trade-unions during the late 20’s and 30’s as “sectarian”. The German Maoists say that KPD’s decision of reacting to those expulsions by building up new red trade-unions under the leadership of the German communists was “a serious mistake”:


To counter the reformist leadership's policy of expulsion, the communists must work with great skill in the unions and prove to be active members. It is fundamentally wrong to withdraw from the trade unions or encourage the organization of red unions affiliated to the party.” (ICMLPO, International Newsletter, nº 33, July, 2007, edition in English)


Therefore, accordingly with the “ML”PD, the German communists who were expelled from bourgeois trade unions during the advent of Nazism should have betrayed their ideology by imploring to the leaders of those trade unions to let them stay. Indeed, the German Maoists go even further by affirming that German communists should have make efforts to “be active members” of the pro-nazi trade unions, that is, that they should have contributed to the strengthening of those trade-unions. This opinion is so awful and reactionary that it does not need further comments. It entirely speaks for itself and plainly reveals Maoists’ ugliest face.

As if this dreadful ultra-reactionary position was not enough, the social-fascists of the “ML”PD also criticize comrade Stalin’s correct Marxist-Leninist teaching that considers social-democracy as synonym of social-fascism. They claim that this position was “wrong” and affirm that its adoption by Thalmann’s KPD promoted the ascension of Nazism:


Closely related with the sectarian RGO policy was the social-fascism theory, which likewise originated with the Comintern. (…) The adoption of aggressive anticommunism in theory and practice by the Rightist leaders of the Social-Democratic Party (SPD) (…) did not make the SPD anything like a social-fascist party (?!!). Willi Dickhut pointed out the historic consequences of this wrong theory:


Defaming all social-democrats as social-fascists destroyed existing contacts between communists and social-democrats and prevented the creation of a proletarian united front which, as a strong backbone of a broad antifascist unity of action, could have prevented Hitler from seizing power.” (ICMLPO, International Newsletter, nº 33, July, 2007, edition in English)


In first place, comrade Stalin’s position is correct and consistent. Social-democracy is really a synonym of social-fascism: both try to maintain wage slavery and to preserve capitalist exploitative tyranny. In what respects to the accusation made by the German Maoists that the adoption of this firm and principled stand towards social-democracy by the KPD contributed to the ascension of Nazism, we can only say that this charge is nowadays rejected even by bourgeois ideologues. In his book, “Blackshirts and Reds”, American bourgeois-democratic scholar Michael Parenti reflects about the ascension of Nazism and affirms that:


“In the December 1932 election, three candidates run for presidency: the conservative incumbent Field Marshall von Hindenburg, the Nazi candidate Adolf Hitler and the Communist Party’s candidate Ernst Thalmann. In his campaign, Thalmann argued that a vote for Hindenburg amounted to a vote for Hitler and that Hitler would lead Germany into war. The bourgeois press, including the Social-Democrats, denounced this view as “Moscow inspired”.


True to form, the Social-Democrat leaders refused the Communist Party’s proposal to form an eleventh hour coalition against Nazism. As in many other countries, past and present, so in Germany, the Social-Democrats would sooner ally themselves with the reactionary Right than to make common cause with the Reds. Meanwhile, a number of right-wing parties coalesced behind the Nazis and in January 1933, just weeks after the elections, Hindenburg invited Hitler to become chancellor.” (Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds, San Francisco, 1997)


As can be concluded, even non-communists admit that the social-democrats of the SPD were to blame for Nazi ascension. So, contrary to what the social-fascists of the “ML”PG say, the adoption of aggressive anticommunism in theory and practice by the Rightist leaders of the Social-Democratic Party (SPD) (…) indeed made the SPD a social-fascist party!


Of course, German Maoists do their utmost to defend their ideological partners (the social-democrats) while falsely accusing the German communists of being responsible for the emergence of Nazism. This is quite expectable because both Maoism and social-democracy play the same role: they keep the oppressed masses in bondage by detaching them from the authentic communist ideology through the support of an allegedly “tamed capitalism”.


After this, the German Maoists affirm that:


It was only the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935 which corrected the sectarian course and gave out a new tactical orientation to establish a united front against fascism.” (ICMLPO, International Newsletter, nº 33, July, 2007, edition in English)


Of course, the social-fascists of the “ML”PD would never loose an opportunity to praise the infamous 7th Congress of the Comintern in which the ultra-revisionist Dimitrov presented his loathful anti-Leninist “theory” of the “united front against fascism”. In truth, Dimitrov’s “ideas” were nothing more than an explicit appeal to the capitulation of communist parties in benefit of bourgeois-revisionist ideologies and movements; but the German Maoists seem to think that Dimitrov’s abhorrent social-capitalist “theories” were a veritable “cure” for the “mistakes” supposedly committed by “Stalinist sectarianism”. This position can be understood if we take into account the striking similarities between Dimitrov’s revisionism and Maoist revisionism, particularly in what respects to the defense that both make of the unity with the bourgeoisie under the excuse of “struggling against the common enemy” (in the case of Dimitrov’s revisionism, the role of this common enemy was played by fascism, while in Mao’s revisionism, the common enemy was imperialism – at least during Maoism’s initial stages). By perpetuating capitalism, both these kinds of revisionism ultimately favor the enemies they pretend to combat: Dimitrov’s “united front” theories aim to struggle against fascism, but by supporting the union between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie (which will always be an inherently exploitative class, no matter if we are referring to its openly pro-fascist sections or to its “progressive” and “anti-fascist” sections), Dimitrov’s revisionism is ensuring that the fight against fascism will never have a truly socialist and Marxist-Leninist character, it is ensuring that this anti-fascist struggle will never put capitalist system in risk, thus preventing the abolition of the inevitability of fascism, because fascism will always exist as long as capitalism exists. In the same manner, Mao’s phony “anti-imperialism” was never based on an authentic socialist ideology, but only wanted to pave the way for Chinese national bourgeoisie’s own imperialist aims. By advocating and promoting the “unity of all revolutionary classes” (including the alleged “anti-imperialist” bourgeoisie), Maoist revisionism prevented the anti-imperialist struggle of the Chinese workers from acquiring a genuine communist nature, it prevented that anti-imperialist struggle from surpassing the limits of capitalism. This actually meant that Mao avoided the abolition of the inevitability of imperialism, because imperialism will always exist as long as capitalism exists – what permitted the accomplishment of the imperialist predatory purposes of the Chinese national bourgeoisie, to whom Mao faithfully served.


Consequently, by denying proletarian supremacy and by automatically supporting the dominance of the bourgeois oppressive socio-economic-ideological order, both Dimitrov’s revisionism and Maoist revisionism fulfill their tasks of defending the class interests of the capitalists. In face of this, no wonder that Maoists love Dimitrov so much! They know very well that the aims and objectives of Dimitrov’s “theories” are exactly the same of those of “Mao Zedong Thought”.


Besides this, the German Maoists also state that they support a “socialism” which would allegedly be in accordance with each country’s “specific laws and conditions”. They add that Mao’s “C” PC applied this “principle” in an “exemplary manner”:


This called (…) for independent parties willing and able to concretize the theory of Marxism-Leninism by applying the dialectical method to revolutionary practice in their countries and to realize strategy and tactics according with the specific laws and conditions. In an exemplary manner the Communist Party of China under Mao Zedong’s leadership managed to achieve this (…).”(ICMLPO, International Newsletter, nº 33, July, 2007, edition in English)


Of course, being reactionaries and social-fascists, the German Maoists could not fail to praise the “theory of national socialism” which has been defended by all kinds of revisionists: since the sadly famous Tito’s “Yugoslav road to socialism” to the not less famous socialisme á la française fabricated by the social-chauvinists of the French “Communist” Party and, of course, to the “socialism with Chinese characteristics” invented by Mao. All these “theories” of “specific socialisms” are nothing more than perverse attempts to hide the pro-capitalist and bourgeois character of their authors. As we had already highlighted in the DWM II:


This is (…) closely related with what the Chinese revisionists call “socialism with chinese characteristics”. As every revisionist current, Maoist revisionism also propagates its own “chinese socialism” (…). However, Comrade Stalin and Comrade Enver Hoxha always underlined that those specificities are always limited to minor and secondary aspects of the socialist edification and can never be extended to its essential characteristics, because socialist and communist edification must follow a certain and invariable line in accordance with the teachings of the Classics, regardless of the place in which socialism is being built.” (Documents of the Comintern (SH), Declaration of War against the Maoists II, June 2011, version in English)


Finally, the German Maoists don’t hesitate before insisting in the old lies about the supposed “anti-revisionist” struggle of the “C” PC and about the allegedly “socialist” nature of Mao’s “Cultural Revolution”:


Beginning in 1963 the CP China conducted a public polemic against the revisionist betrayal. (…) The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in 1966 was the creative advancement of the strategy and tactics of class struggle in socialism, a successful mass movement to counter the danger of revisionist degeneration of the CP China and the restoration of capitalism in China.” (ICMLPO, International Newsletter, nº 33, July, 2007, edition in English)


In the previous DWM I and DWM II, we had already analyzed this subject and tried to expose Mao’s “anti-revisionist combat” as the total masquerade it actually was. Therefore, we will not loose more time with this issue and we politely direct our readers to the referred DWM I and II.

Relatively to the claims of the German Maoists that the Maoist “Cultural Revolution” was an example of “class struggle in socialism” and a “successful mass movement to counter the danger of revisionist degeneration”, we will only recall comrade Enver’s words:


The «Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution» was not a cultural revolution (it was aimed against that culture which Marx and Lenin advocated). It was a political revolution, not on the Marxist-Leninist course, but an anarchist revolution, without a program, against the working class and its party, because in fact, the leading role of the working class and the party itself were liquidated. (…)


During this chaotic and anarchist revolution, allegedly repairs were carried out on the party, allegedly it was reformed. And how many were expelled after all this great turmoil and period of distrust and insecurity? Only three to four per cent. However, this figure does not indicate that the party had «decayed», but implies that Mao and some of his followers had no confidence in the party. What other «benefit» did the Cultural Revolution bring? None at all!” (Enver Hoxha, Reflections on China, Volume II, Tirana, 1979, edition in English)


After all this, we think that no more comments are needed. The pro-capitalist, ultra-reactionary and social-fascist nature of the Maoist “ML”PD is already entirely proved and confirmed.


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

Wer ist die MLPD ?