penguinfoot
7th November 2010, 02:29
[The Centre Marxiste-Léniniste de France] was badly discredited by its support for de Gaulle in the 1965 presidential elections, a support which it justified by de Gaulle's hostility toward American imperialism. It was the only Maoist group not dissolved by decree of the Gaullist government after the 1968 uprising. Beaulieu's group was denounced as the French followers of Liu Shao-shi by the other Maoists, and very negatively viewed by the non-Maoist Left for its support of Gaullism. On the other hand, the Federation, which changed its name to the Mouvement Communiste Français (MCF) in 1967, received official recognition as a fraternal organization from the Chinese and Albanian parties.
Belden Fields, A., Trotskyism and Maoism: Theory and Practice in France and the United States (1989), chapter three
The CP(ML) also took a position on the Second World that the RCP was unable to accept. Like its French counterpart [the Mouvement Communiste Français (MCF) - the CP(ML) was also officially endorsed by the CPC as a fraternal party] which took its cues from the Chinese regime, the CP(ML) viewed NATO as a positive anti-Soviet force in Europe and emphasized the "objective" contradiction which exists between the Second World countries and the United States. The Second World countries in Western Europe have this dual character of being at once imperialistic themselves but threatened by the hegemonic United States. Since even that hegemonic power is less dangerous than the Soviet Union, and since the Second World countries in it have a dual character which renders them potential allies of the Third World, the CP(ML) was supportive of the existence of NATO, and adamantly against any attempt to dismantle it unilaterally.
ibid., chapter five
Presumably following what it thought to be in the best interests of the Chinese, the KPD in 1975 not only endorsed the maintenance of U.S. troops in Europe but even the arming of West German troops with atomic weapons. Concerning the latter, Rote Fahne, the KPD paper, wrote that "Nuclear weapons in the hands of the West European states are weapons of justice when they serve to defend freedom and independence against the superpowers." As for U.S. troops staying in Western Europe, Rote Fahne said that "Today the situation is such that European countries do not have sufficient defense forces of their own to counter successfully a military attack by Soviet social imperialism, the major enemy of the European peoples and states...The struggle against U.S. troops in our country serves only Soviet social imperialism".
Alexander, Robert J., Maoism in the Developed World (2001), pp. 83
Any views? That is, any opinions on why so many Maoist organizations in the 60s and 70s took such highly problematic stances on issues like NATO? I should make clear that the CP(ML) in the United States and the MCF in France were the official fraternal parties of the CPC and the Albanians but that neither the CPC nor the Albanians ever selected an official fraternal party in West Germany. The KPD was roughly the second biggest Maoist organization in West Germany after the KPD/ML (which, confusingly, ended up calling itself the KPD in the mid-1980s, after the original Maoist KPD had dissolved itself, neither of these organizations having any relation to the original KPD of the 20s and 30s) which did not support the continued existence of NATO or the Bundeswehr, although it did encourage its members to enter the Bundeswehr in order to gain weapons training.
Belden Fields, A., Trotskyism and Maoism: Theory and Practice in France and the United States (1989), chapter three
The CP(ML) also took a position on the Second World that the RCP was unable to accept. Like its French counterpart [the Mouvement Communiste Français (MCF) - the CP(ML) was also officially endorsed by the CPC as a fraternal party] which took its cues from the Chinese regime, the CP(ML) viewed NATO as a positive anti-Soviet force in Europe and emphasized the "objective" contradiction which exists between the Second World countries and the United States. The Second World countries in Western Europe have this dual character of being at once imperialistic themselves but threatened by the hegemonic United States. Since even that hegemonic power is less dangerous than the Soviet Union, and since the Second World countries in it have a dual character which renders them potential allies of the Third World, the CP(ML) was supportive of the existence of NATO, and adamantly against any attempt to dismantle it unilaterally.
ibid., chapter five
Presumably following what it thought to be in the best interests of the Chinese, the KPD in 1975 not only endorsed the maintenance of U.S. troops in Europe but even the arming of West German troops with atomic weapons. Concerning the latter, Rote Fahne, the KPD paper, wrote that "Nuclear weapons in the hands of the West European states are weapons of justice when they serve to defend freedom and independence against the superpowers." As for U.S. troops staying in Western Europe, Rote Fahne said that "Today the situation is such that European countries do not have sufficient defense forces of their own to counter successfully a military attack by Soviet social imperialism, the major enemy of the European peoples and states...The struggle against U.S. troops in our country serves only Soviet social imperialism".
Alexander, Robert J., Maoism in the Developed World (2001), pp. 83
Any views? That is, any opinions on why so many Maoist organizations in the 60s and 70s took such highly problematic stances on issues like NATO? I should make clear that the CP(ML) in the United States and the MCF in France were the official fraternal parties of the CPC and the Albanians but that neither the CPC nor the Albanians ever selected an official fraternal party in West Germany. The KPD was roughly the second biggest Maoist organization in West Germany after the KPD/ML (which, confusingly, ended up calling itself the KPD in the mid-1980s, after the original Maoist KPD had dissolved itself, neither of these organizations having any relation to the original KPD of the 20s and 30s) which did not support the continued existence of NATO or the Bundeswehr, although it did encourage its members to enter the Bundeswehr in order to gain weapons training.