FSL
15th February 2014, 00:14
The relevant parts of an article I saw here: http://www.politicalaffairs.net/world-communist-parties-debate-strategy-for-the-road-ahead/
World communist parties debate strategy for the road ahead
by: SUSAN WEBB
february 12 2014
Are there stages between capitalism and socialism? Should communists be part of broad coalitions with non-communists? Should communists ever cooperate with capitalists? Can countries like Brazil play a progressive role in the world even though they are capitalist? These questions and others were discussed and vigorously debated at the recent meeting of communist and workers' parties in Portugal.
.
.
.
So the naïve and wishful hopes of Cold Warriors for the death of communism are being proven wrong, as is the idea that communism is, or ever was, monolithic. This should not surprise anyone. Marx, Engels, Lenin and other thinkers on whom these parties base their politics all emphasized carefully studying reality and its ever-changing evolution, and grounding ideas in that unfolding reality. These parties work amidst widely differing conditions, cultures and histories.
The international meetings of communist and workers parties since 1999 have been based on the concept that, as Lenin himself said, every country has to find a path to socialism in its own way, based on its own conditions and its own history.
However, at the meeting last November, the Communist Party of Greece, supported by a few others, took sharp issue with the policies of a wide range of other parties, arguing that they diverged from Marxism and represented opportunism. The Greek party's criticisms were so strong that it rejected and blocked issuance of any consensual final statement summarizing the thinking of the conference. In doing so, the Greek party and its supporters from a few other countries clearly went up against the thinking and policies of the overwhelming majority of parties represented at the meeting.
What were the points that the Greek party and a few others argued for?
1. There are no intermediate stages between capitalism and socialism. There is no basis for reform coalitions - these simply "manage" capitalism. Communists should not engage in alliances with sectors of capitalists - for example non-monopoly capital. Broad anti-fascist fronts are to be rejected. The only way to proceed is to struggle to overthrow capitalism.
2. Fighting for national sovereignty - for example in a capitalist country facing IMF dictates - is not a legitimate communist activity; it represents an alliance with capitalist elements.
3. The idea of a multipolar world is rejected. The concept of the BRICS countries - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa - or others, such as in Latin America, emerging as challenges to Western imperialism is rejected - these are simply all bourgeois capitalist countries.
4. Identifying financialization as a particular feature of today's capitalism is a hoax, a diversion. Capitalism is capitalism.
5. "Market socialism," which has been or is being adopted by several parties that lead governments (including China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba), is rejected.
These points are discussed more fully in a statement issued by the Greek Communist Party after the conference.
The Greek Communist Party's criticisms are aimed in part at European communist parties who in one way or another associate themselves with the European Left Party, something the Greek party strongly opposes. But the sharpest criticisms seem directed at the many Latin American parties that participate in left coalition governments.
In its statement after the meeting, the Greek party speaks of "the necessity of a single revolutionary strategy" for all countries, one that complies with that party's interpretation of the works of Marx and Lenin.
However Lenin himself had a different take on this.
He spoke of the "variety ... in the path mankind will follow" from imperialism to socialism. Each country, he wrote, "will contribute something of its own to some form of democracy ... to the varying rates of socialist transformations in the different aspects of social life." ("A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism," 1916)
"We do not regard Marx's theory as something completed and inviolable; on the contrary, we are convinced that it has only laid the foundation stone of the science which socialists must develop in all directions if they wish to keep pace with life," Lenin wrote ("Our Programme"). "[T]his theory provides only general guiding principles, which ... are applied differently in England than in France, in France differently than in Germany, and in Germany differently than in Russia."
It was evident at the Lisbon meeting that the arguments put forward by the Greek Communist Party are increasingly far out of the mainstream of today's world communist movement. In country after country, communists are engaged in struggles for national sovereignty and democratic rights in alliance with others, sometimes as part of left coalition governments. Many pointed to the parasitic "financialization" of their countries' economies as a current feature of capitalism that has to be studied, understood, and fought against. The struggle against financialization was expressed in our country recently by the Occupy Wall Street movement. All of these struggles, the parties say, are part and parcel of the fight for socialism.
For example, the Communist Party of Brazil, which is part of that country's governing left coalition, describes its role in federal and state governments and in electoral politics as part of multidimensional party activity - the other dimensions being "the movement of workers and popular masses and the struggle of ideas" - aiming to "promote the accumulation of revolutionary forces."
In another example, the Communist Party of Portugal, which participates in an electoral alliance (Broad Democratic Coalition - CDU) with the Ecology Party (the "Greens") and a socialist group called Democratic Intervention, calls for "struggle for a fairer, developed and sovereign country ... to defeat the course of disaster imposed by a right-wing policy and which will open the prospects for an alternative, patriotic and left-wing policy." It advocates "the construction of a patriotic and left-wing policy, an essential condition to ensure the defense of the interests and rights of the workers and Portuguese people and to affirm national sovereignty and free the country from the present course of social regression, economic decline and dependence." Similar policies are followed by most communist parties around the world. Our party, the Communist Party USA, pursues a similar approach based on our own experiences and conditions of struggle. The outlook and policies of our party fit well into the mainstream of the world communist movement as expressed at the Lisbon meeting last November.
The formal presentations by each party at the Lisbon meeting, and a list of participating parties, are available online.
What I thought was rather odd is how CPUSA is defending a "multitude of approaches in achieving revolution" and then goes on to describe just one.
All the examples it brings are essentially the same thing. What it does with Obama, what the communist party of Brazil does with Russef (whose government is at the time spending money on subsiding businesses, on building stadiums for the world cup and on police gear http://news.yahoo.com/brazil-police-fire-rubber-bullets-landless-protest-200529381.html), what the communist party of Portugal would hope happens there, that's all one and the same thing. There seems to be not one country where "its special conditions" necessitate a different approach?
And what are the guiding principles Lenin spoke of? How far can the "application" take you?
Lenin at that time dealt with issues like whether should communists participate in elections and such. Whether they would make a fight against feudalism their immediate demand.
Are these the issues communists face today? When the SPD thought of internationalism as a "guiding principle" we know what followed.
I think that this is a huge burden on communism. This multitude of tactics the CPUSA is defending (and many parties are practicing) is political jargon, just empty phrasing. It's in fact just one tactic, always siding with a progressive section of capital. And as we can see in Brazil or the US, capital has no progressive sections.
For the communist movement to grow and for it to start showing results again, this is the first thing we need to do away with.
Modern day "mainstream communism" is unbelievably conservative. There are guiding principles in socialism and they have almost all been discarded.
World communist parties debate strategy for the road ahead
by: SUSAN WEBB
february 12 2014
Are there stages between capitalism and socialism? Should communists be part of broad coalitions with non-communists? Should communists ever cooperate with capitalists? Can countries like Brazil play a progressive role in the world even though they are capitalist? These questions and others were discussed and vigorously debated at the recent meeting of communist and workers' parties in Portugal.
.
.
.
So the naïve and wishful hopes of Cold Warriors for the death of communism are being proven wrong, as is the idea that communism is, or ever was, monolithic. This should not surprise anyone. Marx, Engels, Lenin and other thinkers on whom these parties base their politics all emphasized carefully studying reality and its ever-changing evolution, and grounding ideas in that unfolding reality. These parties work amidst widely differing conditions, cultures and histories.
The international meetings of communist and workers parties since 1999 have been based on the concept that, as Lenin himself said, every country has to find a path to socialism in its own way, based on its own conditions and its own history.
However, at the meeting last November, the Communist Party of Greece, supported by a few others, took sharp issue with the policies of a wide range of other parties, arguing that they diverged from Marxism and represented opportunism. The Greek party's criticisms were so strong that it rejected and blocked issuance of any consensual final statement summarizing the thinking of the conference. In doing so, the Greek party and its supporters from a few other countries clearly went up against the thinking and policies of the overwhelming majority of parties represented at the meeting.
What were the points that the Greek party and a few others argued for?
1. There are no intermediate stages between capitalism and socialism. There is no basis for reform coalitions - these simply "manage" capitalism. Communists should not engage in alliances with sectors of capitalists - for example non-monopoly capital. Broad anti-fascist fronts are to be rejected. The only way to proceed is to struggle to overthrow capitalism.
2. Fighting for national sovereignty - for example in a capitalist country facing IMF dictates - is not a legitimate communist activity; it represents an alliance with capitalist elements.
3. The idea of a multipolar world is rejected. The concept of the BRICS countries - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa - or others, such as in Latin America, emerging as challenges to Western imperialism is rejected - these are simply all bourgeois capitalist countries.
4. Identifying financialization as a particular feature of today's capitalism is a hoax, a diversion. Capitalism is capitalism.
5. "Market socialism," which has been or is being adopted by several parties that lead governments (including China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba), is rejected.
These points are discussed more fully in a statement issued by the Greek Communist Party after the conference.
The Greek Communist Party's criticisms are aimed in part at European communist parties who in one way or another associate themselves with the European Left Party, something the Greek party strongly opposes. But the sharpest criticisms seem directed at the many Latin American parties that participate in left coalition governments.
In its statement after the meeting, the Greek party speaks of "the necessity of a single revolutionary strategy" for all countries, one that complies with that party's interpretation of the works of Marx and Lenin.
However Lenin himself had a different take on this.
He spoke of the "variety ... in the path mankind will follow" from imperialism to socialism. Each country, he wrote, "will contribute something of its own to some form of democracy ... to the varying rates of socialist transformations in the different aspects of social life." ("A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism," 1916)
"We do not regard Marx's theory as something completed and inviolable; on the contrary, we are convinced that it has only laid the foundation stone of the science which socialists must develop in all directions if they wish to keep pace with life," Lenin wrote ("Our Programme"). "[T]his theory provides only general guiding principles, which ... are applied differently in England than in France, in France differently than in Germany, and in Germany differently than in Russia."
It was evident at the Lisbon meeting that the arguments put forward by the Greek Communist Party are increasingly far out of the mainstream of today's world communist movement. In country after country, communists are engaged in struggles for national sovereignty and democratic rights in alliance with others, sometimes as part of left coalition governments. Many pointed to the parasitic "financialization" of their countries' economies as a current feature of capitalism that has to be studied, understood, and fought against. The struggle against financialization was expressed in our country recently by the Occupy Wall Street movement. All of these struggles, the parties say, are part and parcel of the fight for socialism.
For example, the Communist Party of Brazil, which is part of that country's governing left coalition, describes its role in federal and state governments and in electoral politics as part of multidimensional party activity - the other dimensions being "the movement of workers and popular masses and the struggle of ideas" - aiming to "promote the accumulation of revolutionary forces."
In another example, the Communist Party of Portugal, which participates in an electoral alliance (Broad Democratic Coalition - CDU) with the Ecology Party (the "Greens") and a socialist group called Democratic Intervention, calls for "struggle for a fairer, developed and sovereign country ... to defeat the course of disaster imposed by a right-wing policy and which will open the prospects for an alternative, patriotic and left-wing policy." It advocates "the construction of a patriotic and left-wing policy, an essential condition to ensure the defense of the interests and rights of the workers and Portuguese people and to affirm national sovereignty and free the country from the present course of social regression, economic decline and dependence." Similar policies are followed by most communist parties around the world. Our party, the Communist Party USA, pursues a similar approach based on our own experiences and conditions of struggle. The outlook and policies of our party fit well into the mainstream of the world communist movement as expressed at the Lisbon meeting last November.
The formal presentations by each party at the Lisbon meeting, and a list of participating parties, are available online.
What I thought was rather odd is how CPUSA is defending a "multitude of approaches in achieving revolution" and then goes on to describe just one.
All the examples it brings are essentially the same thing. What it does with Obama, what the communist party of Brazil does with Russef (whose government is at the time spending money on subsiding businesses, on building stadiums for the world cup and on police gear http://news.yahoo.com/brazil-police-fire-rubber-bullets-landless-protest-200529381.html), what the communist party of Portugal would hope happens there, that's all one and the same thing. There seems to be not one country where "its special conditions" necessitate a different approach?
And what are the guiding principles Lenin spoke of? How far can the "application" take you?
Lenin at that time dealt with issues like whether should communists participate in elections and such. Whether they would make a fight against feudalism their immediate demand.
Are these the issues communists face today? When the SPD thought of internationalism as a "guiding principle" we know what followed.
I think that this is a huge burden on communism. This multitude of tactics the CPUSA is defending (and many parties are practicing) is political jargon, just empty phrasing. It's in fact just one tactic, always siding with a progressive section of capital. And as we can see in Brazil or the US, capital has no progressive sections.
For the communist movement to grow and for it to start showing results again, this is the first thing we need to do away with.
Modern day "mainstream communism" is unbelievably conservative. There are guiding principles in socialism and they have almost all been discarded.