Setting the Reference Point for Learning from the
Experience of the Founding of RCPB(ML)

A continuation of the report “What the Times are Calling for:
Building the Party in the 21st Century” (see Workers' Weekly No.9)

A key issue that was represented in the discussions of the Seminar to celebrate the 35th anniversary of RCPB(ML) was the necessity to strengthen the Party to advance in the present conditions. The papers presented in the second half of the seminar detailed key areas in which the Party organises the working class to take up its leading role and chart a way out of the crisis. They showed how the Party viewed this task 35 years ago under the leadership of John Buckle, and how the Party conducts its organising work in present conditions and circumstances. In so doing, they raised the issue of the authority of the Party in all these fronts of work.

In his concluding remarks to the seminar, Michael Chant thanked everyone for participating and pointed out that the 35th anniversary is of special significance. RCPB(ML) is a Party which is dedicated to the establishment of the new society. All the struggles in the various fronts have their place within the overall task to organise the working class to take up its mission as the class which is going to settle scores with this imperialist elite. The struggles form one whole movement, the movement which has its root in achieving a society which is actually fit for human beings to live in. All of these struggles are part of the one struggle: they are reserves of the struggle of the working class to change society through revolutionary transformation and that is what the Party has been dedicated to since its founding. It has done so not from the point of view of trying to convert people like a catechism of Marxism-Leninism, but as all the comrades today have so amply proved, it has done it by coming out of the concrete conditions, analysing, fighting courageously wherever the comrades and friends have been and in unity with the international proletariat and the international communist movement throughout the world.

Michael Chant, General Secretary, and Chris Coleman, National
Leader, with between them Hyong Hak Bong, Ambassador of the DPRK,
who delivered a message from the Workers' Party of Korea One of the crucial issues that faces the working class and people today is the issue of their empowerment, because it is true that once the people can analyse the situation, get together, develop their thinking – they can make inroads. It is a class struggle that is going on; it is a power struggle. We uphold that the Party’s method of work is one of the keys to this, alongside its revolutionary theory and its political programme for the class, as the comrades have mentioned: the conscious participation in setting the agenda, working out what favours their interests within the situation. And ultimately it is a question of who has decision-making power in the country, whether it is the financial oligarchy, the ruling elite, whether the decisions are made by monopolies elsewhere in the world. What is essential is that the working class rallies all sections of the people around itself and settles scores with these bourgeois dictators. So it is necessary to work out how to deprive those in power of that power to deprive us of power. The central issue in society is: who has decision-making power?

The Party’s general line in the new circumstances was formulated in 1994-95 and it is this line of march which was consolidated at the Third Congress and which guides all our work today. One of the crucial questions is that of democratic renewal, renewal of the political processes and institutions, overcoming what has been called the crisis of working class representation, in fact a crisis of the whole system that goes by the name of representative democracy. The old method from Marx’s day and in the 20th century of the party in power / party in opposition is finished. The struggles of the anti-war movement are staying the hand of the warmongers who are creating chaos and anarchy throughout the world, with a policy simply of destabilisation wherever they intervene.

3rd Congress of RCPB(ML) This question of organising for power is crucial and in our view it is a political task guided by revolutionary theory to achieve this. We are calling on everyone to join in these practical politics and open a path to the progress of society. This is the significance of John Buckle and 35 years ago, the founding of the Party and the Party’s traditions – that they are a vivid example of how the Party was in action in that period of flow of revolution and that the generation who is lifting up that banner today can take it forward. It is an enormous challenge for the working class and people, but the Party is there as the key subjective factor. So it is going to learn from and study John Buckle and 35 years ago in an organised way – it calls on all comrades and friends and all the people in the movement to look seriously at the challenges that are faced and have no illusions about the bestial, anti-human nature of the system ruled by greed in the interests of finance capital. But the issue is to release that human power which can change the situation, which first of all can limit the power of these monopolies and their political representatives, but can then turn the situation around, move forward to building their strength, accumulate forces and eventually organise the working class to become the leading force which vests sovereignty in the people; in other words, enables the people to have this decision-making power.

Long Live the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)!

(to be continued)

In the referendum of March 16, citizens of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and of the city of Sevastopol voted to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation. The final voting figures were reported to be 96.77% in favour of joining the Russian Federation on a turnout of 83.1% of the eligible voters. Despite the media and government hysteria in Britain, Europe and North America, the 135 international observers from 23 countries reported that there was neither voting under pressure nor any violations of voting rules.

Despite this vote by the people of the various nationalities who are citizens of Crimea to affirm their sovereignty and themselves decide whether they should be an independent state, the European Union together with the US State Department the following day imposed sanctions on government authorities and deputies and various Russian figures. The pretext was that the vote violated the Constitution of the Ukraine, despite the fact that the vote to support the reunification of Crimea with Russia was overwhelming.

The G7 as well as the European Council and the European Commission also issued a joint statement on March 2, attacking Russia’s position on Ukraine and declaring suspension of preparations for a G8 summit scheduled for June in the Russian resort city of Sochi.

Despite this, the Russian parliament signed a treaty accepting Crimea as part of the Russian Federation. Deputies of the Duma (Lower Chamber) denounced the reprisals of the US and EU. They affirmed that the measures had no relation to the Crimea issue, but were rather put in place because Russia’s positions are independent from those of the US and EU.

President Putin laid out the double standards involved. He said, “In the practical application of policies, our Western partners – the United States first and foremost – prefer to be guided not by international law, but by the right of strength. They believe in their exceptionalism, that they (can) decide on the fate of the world, that they are always right.”

In the Ukraine, post-Soviet Russia and US-led imperialism are confronting each other. The US-led camp, as well as the countries of “old Europe”, are sensing that they can make gains and lay waste the whole region. Inter-monopoly contradictions over the access to and control over energy resources are a significant factor in this crisis. For the peoples of the region, the burning issue has once again surfaced as to how the equality of countries and the sovereign rights of nations and peoples, irrespective of their ethnic makeup, can be established or re-established. The question is being posed as to how these rights can be given a meaningful guarantee under the prevailing conditions.

The Ukrainian "Orange Revolution" in 2004 had imposed a coalition of neo-fascists and neo-liberals, instigated and propped up by the George W Bush administration, which seized power in Kiev through mass demonstrations in the city’s central Maidan Square. Ten years later under the Obama administration, the latest coup has taken place along many of the same lines.

The financiers of the European Union and the IMF now wish to push ahead with bringing the Ukraine into the orbit of those states that can be declared bankrupt and have“austerity measures” imposed, which are both against the interests of the people and also arouse their resistance.

There are contending interests, not only between the US and the EU as regards monopoly interests in the Ukraine, but between the EU powers themselves, for instance over the gas resources that come from Russia via the Ukraine. The British government seems to be eyeing the possibility of taking steps to control the fracking of shale gas in southern and eastern Europe, as a desperate move to counteract the pivotal position of the Russian gas supplies. Both the EU and NATO are looking to push further east also, particularly into Moldova, as well as Georgia. These are bound to be areas of contention in the future, and the scene is set for a dangerous confrontation, while Russia is demanding a guarantee of military neutrality from the Ukraine. The stark fact is that only the movement of the Ukrainian people themselves and their struggle can avert the threat of war represented by the contention of the US and the EU big powers.

Despite the fact that the people of the Ukraine as a whole are against joining NATO, the United States refers to the “right” of Ukraine to be a member of that warmongering US-led alliance. The fact is that such a “right” only makes sense if the right of the Ukrainian people to say No! to NATO is taken into account. This exposes the US’s ulterior motives. Just imagine the “right” of the US to place bases on Ukrainian soil, while Russia only has the “right” to remove its Black Sea fleet from Sevastopol! The US is already using the Baltic states as bases for its jet fighters, for instance, and is ready to deploy NATO troops into Poland, as well as to Romania. Yet the Russian military in the Crimea which was made an administrative part of the Ukraine as recently as 1954 is considered as “aggression”! Nor is this necessarily to the liking of Germany and other EU powers, including France, that NATO should be placed on a permanent war footing against Russia. Nevertheless, the situation in the Ukraine has revived in Germany the Nazi dream of expansion eastwards, as well as the German ambitions to consolidate its domination of the EU.

While the right to self-determination is a principle, the same cannot be said of the issue of “territorial integrity”. The so-called “responsibility to protect” is also a fiction concocted by the big powers for self-serving reasons. The equation 15 years ago for the US was that to control and dismember Yugoslavia would be a foothold to control Europe, and from consolidating its grip on Europe to encircle and then dominate Eurasia and the rest of Asia. There was no talk of the “territorial integrity” of Yugoslavia then, and the “self-determination” of Kosovo was used as a pretext for launching aggression. Tony Blair at that time was a Trojan horse for the interests of the US within and over the European Union.

Furthermore, the crisis in Ukraine has been used in order to restore Nazis to power, consistent with the rehabilitation of neo-Nazis everywhere, at the same time as the anti-communist equating of the Nazi holocaust with the exploits of the Soviet red army in liberating Europe from fascism. David Cameron himself has seen fit to meet with these neo-Nazi leaders, while mouthing worthless platitudes about defending the sovereignty of the Ukraine. At the very basic level, if Cameron were defending the sovereignty of any country, the very least would be to end all interference. Instead, Britain, along with other EU countries and in contention with the US itself, whose President felt it necessary to come to Europe to address the European leaders, have been interfering up to the hilt. It is not just a question of taking sides, but of backing the pro-EU oligarchs and using and giving the green light to the neo-Nazis themselves to bring the Ukraine to the brink of civil war. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the privatisation of state-owned assets, the contention between the oligarchs of the Ukraine has been a factor in the rise of the neo-Nazis.

It is not for nothing that prior to the referendum, slogans such as “stop fascism” were prominent. The fascists and neo-Nazis had been used to foment violence and have taken up key positions of state. These are the heirs of the massacres at Babi Yar, which, as is common knowledge, were the tip of the iceberg of the Nazi extermination of millions of Jewish people, Roma, communists and others considered as less than human. These are facts, not “Russian propaganda”.

What the Ukrainian people desire, as do any people, is a stable sovereign state representing their will, and a government able and competent to make decisions without outside interference. Only the movement of the Ukrainian people can restore relations of equality and mutual benefit with the neighbouring Russian people. The big powers of the EU and the US are determined to ensure that this does not happen, that the people are kept at loggerheads with present-day Nazis in power, whom the big powers rely on to incite passions and serve their interests. It is a sordid geo-political affair, and not a matter of high moral principle.

The working people of Britain must condemn the Coalition government for their stand on the Ukraine and the referendum in the Crimea which, with all its sabre-rattling against Russia, has been very self-serving. Despite high-sounding words, there has been no issue of principle involved for David Cameron. There is much talk of the “annexing” of the Crimea by Russia, yet, for example, these Westminster politicians do not apply the same word to the north of Ireland’s being part of the United Kingdom. This, to Cameron and company, is “democratic”, while the actions of Russia are “a fragrant breach of international law”. Cameron’s unilateral statements, moreover, betray an impotence on how to deal with Putin and Russia, in line with the dangerous chaos that the European Union and the US agencies have created in the Ukraine. It should also be mentioned that there are remnants of the Thatcherite line within the British establishment that appears to be “pro-British” and “anti-EU”, but is either concerned to ally with the interests of the US, or represents the interests of other sections of British finance capital.

In this situation, it is important that the democratic forces in Britain hold the Coalition government to account for its interference in the sovereign affairs of other countries and that the working class and people take a stand of principle in defence of the sovereignty of nations and countries.