One of the reasons - not the only one, of course - for the blows we have suffered in recent years, is the ideological weakness which we, the other communists, carried with us.
All our parties, and in a general sense, Marxist-Leninist organisations, failed to really link up with the advanced and conscious sectors of our people. We failed to achieve this because of our ideological and theoretical weakness. This is one of the reasons - I do not know if it is the principal reason but it is a very important one - which, along with other factors, is the cause of the confusion, pessimism and loss of perspective which, whether one likes it or not, nonetheless exists at the level of the popular masses, including among militants, in a great part of Europe.
I think that I am well placed to talk about this question in the light of the defeat we have suffered in Spain, where a party which was apparently strong, which enjoyed real prestige, which had been tempered in a thousand struggles, was destroyed in the course of a few months by a handful of renegades and by a traitor who had worked in a clandestine manner (for how long?) in the heart of the organisation's leading bodies. Only a handful of militants and a few rare leading cadres resisted and are struggling against the gloom of pessimism and discouragement, in very difficult conditions.
It is undeniable, in view of what has happened, that ideological education in the Communist Party of Spain (Marxist-Leninist) [PCE(M-L)] was poor, superficial and bookish. Ideological education has to be continually developed and deepened, and cannot be linear and uniform (either between parties or between militants of the same party, without falling into absolute egalitarianism, which is a false principle). The lack of such education, understood in a dialectical sense, is a reality in our parties and organisations, of course with differences.
This problem is a serious worry for us. In our opinion, it ought to be debated at the Conference of Parties and Organisations, in a planned manner, without haste, taking the amount of time and the number of meetings that are necessary to this end. This is not a futile question. On the contrary, it seems to me that it is very complex and intricate; it demands a great deal of effort, within which the intellectual factor is determinant. It is not a question of "firing on the ambulance", as we say here, but there springs to mind a reply given to me in the 1980s by a high ranking Albanian official to whom I had confided my worries and thoughts on this subject: "We are making a problem out of things which are not a problem at all. Marxism-Leninism is the ideology of the proletariat. It is therefore not something so difficult to acquire. It is not so complicated. The proletariat is not complicated, and consequently its ideology cannot be either." I am quoting from memory, but I guarantee that this is the essence of what he said. The same leader passed this other comment: "Marxism-Leninism is what has been written by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. What we are able to do is to base ourselves on it and comment on it ..." These assertions, argued at length of course (but what cannot be argued?) are not only simplistic and mechanical, but above all are opportunist and anti-dialectical, opposed to what Marxism is and to what the proletariat is as a social class, and constitute a negative, harmful attitude towards the very essence of what communists defend. In view of what has happened, certain people could draw from them conclusions which are hasty and erroneous, because they are unilateral.
Nonetheless, this attitude reminds us of the position adopted by certain ex-Marxist-Leninist knights-errant, incapable of saying and still less of writing anything which might not have coincided with the official positions of the Party of Labour of Albania, who now violently attack those who, like us, openly express divergent positions.
Manuel Sacristain, a Spanish philosopher who died a few years ago while still young and still in the stage of developing theoretically, wrote in the prologue to the Spanish translation of Engels' Anti-Duhring (Ed. Grijalbo, Mexico, 1964):
" .. the struggle against Marxism - from without and within the workers movement, by what it is convenient to call 'revisionism' - mixes up, for reasons which are very easy to understand, the critique of more or less obsolete theoretical developments with betrayal of the objectives of the workers movement; thus one understands that a lazy and dogmatic reading of the Marxist classics has been the easy part up until now." (emphasis in the original).
This "lazy reading" goes hand in hand with a certain rejection, which I consider irresponsible, of the fact that there are "outdated" positions and that there always will be, since continual development is something which is inseparable from the dialectic; a position which is valid today could tomorrow become disoriented, in whole or in part. Let us be clear about this: it is not that the dialectic (of which Marxism is today the best expression) is itself disoriented, but rather that one must try to grasp its continual development.
To stagnate in the classical positions of Marxism, to not see - even if no-one denies it - that Marxism is - or ought to be - in continual evolution, is simply to deny the possibility of any advance in the social revolution. And this is precisely one of the conclusions which the bourgeoisie and its ballerinas, the revisionists and other birds of ill omen, never cease to declare, and amounts to saying: "socialism is impossible, it has failed, Marxism is no longer worth anything" etc.... and therefore that Communist parties no longer have a role, that they are useless, that they cannot provide an answer to the problems posed. And they quote the example of what has happened in the USSR and in the other countries which tried to build socialism ... What neither the bourgeoisie nor any anti-Communists will ever say is that even if the answers were wrong, the questions continue to be correct.
These questions, these correct positions, call forth answers which only the communists can provide. For this reason, we must, in the first place, determine where we have made mistakes, where our failures, our errors and our deficiencies lie. Is not one of the main failings, if not the main one, the absence of the deepening or the development of our analyses, the absence of the updating of positions and their development in line with the development of society itself and the elements which are present? It is certain that in order to advance we will have to analyse, with an open mind and without preconceptions, what has been done at least since 1917 (and maybe before).
This is a difficult but indispensable task if we want to take firm steps forward. And this does not mean that we will convert ourselves into study centres or debating clubs and that we will paralyse our practice, because it is, despite everything, the only consistent practice directed against the bourgeoisie. But it is worthwhile to remind ourselves that "practice is blind if revolutionary theory does not illuminate its path." This theory is not acquired through innate science and, although we have advanced a lot, there will always be new pathways to open up.
It seems to me, for example, that the efforts which the comrades of the Workers Communist Party of France (PCOF) have put in to analyse the construction of socialism in the USSR is frankly to be commended, and ought to be seriously taken into account. Are there any debatable positions? Let's debate them then. Are there assertions which seem erroneous to us? Let's point them out, then, and above all, let's try to contribute to this effort, let's put forward our own analyses, opinions and suggestions.
The confrontation of opinions and ideas between communists always produces positive results, when it is a question of course of communists who want to move forward, to unite their efforts, to pool their analyses. Not to seriously take account of the efforts of the PCOF, not to collaborate with these comrades, each according to their own capabilities, would be a an error and open to criticism. This is all the more the case since, to my knowledge, no-one has to this day undertaken such an analysis from the point of view of Marxism-Leninism, as extensively as the French comrades have done.
Another example of the lack of analytical rigour we are suffering from, is that of a certain party which participates in our meetings, which always demonstrates its disagreement with the essence of the general positions, which never supports the resolutions and decisions which we take (I am speaking of the Conference), whose attitude is full of complacency and arrogance, and which goes as far as to deny any authority to the other parties, on the grounds that someone or the other has not given authorisation or has not recognised the legitimacy of our decisions. This same party, in the last meeting, adopted its usual attitude and was on the point of provoking irritated responses (mea culpa). It is as well not to fall into provocations and not to play the game of those who want to provoke a split. But the question presents itself: do they act in this way because they are idiots (as some believe)? Could it not be that the ideological position of this party, which is not alone or isolated (this adjective indeed comes from the word 'island'), confront our own positions head on? Why do they refuse the type of practical and ideological communist unity which we are trying to achieve?
It is clear that no-one among us has analysed rigorously the positions of this party (and those within its orbit). However, this party, which refused to sign the general communiqué of the second Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations, a few days later published in its paper its joining and signing the Pyongyang (Korea) Declaration. This declaration, composed two or three years ago, is a sack full of banalities, of general phrases with a marked opportunist bent and of eulogies and praise to the "god" Kim Il Sung.
It is not a question of launching into an all out war against these comrades. But we must no longer turn a deaf ear to these ideological positions which confront head on the essence of the Conference. The internal, ideological struggle, that is to say the confrontation of ideas and analyses in order to move forward, has always been - at least in theory - a positive element among communist parties. Why would it not be within the Conference? It is not a question of seeing ghosts, but when one does not face up to problems ideologically, something is going badly. We have on this subject a rich experience, both at the national and international level. The consistent attitude of not discussing in order to avoid contradictions was one of the causes of the degeneration of parties and organisations which, once their point of reference collapsed, went astray without a compass, and ended up disappearing. It is enough to take a look at the situation in a good part of the world. Our Conference is still young, very young, but the majority of its members have acquired experiences - both positive and negative - which ought to be taken into account. Our political, ideological and organisational real life experiences can be a source of lessons. We are a living body, and like all living bodies we have contradictions and differing positions which we are trying to tackle in order to advance and to develop ourselves on all fronts. This magazine, now without either limitations or obligations, is a good example of our will. But, could we do more? For example, discuss collectively the articles published between two meetings. If we do this, surely we would be surprised by the number of 'nuances' and differences which would appear.
Why don't we organise an annual edition of monographs, for example? This could be done in the magazine itself, or in another ad hoc publication.
These are questions which can be dealt with at the next Conference. It is true that we are always short of time, but this sickness - the poverty of analyses and of study, and of the corresponding collective work - goes back a long way, a very long way, and the consequences have been tragic. The "lazy reading of the classics" has rendered excellent service to the opportunists and, for that reason, to reaction. Is that not so?