The CP in developed vs. underdeveloped countries

  1. Workers-Control-Over-Prod
    Workers-Control-Over-Prod
    I have heard a lot from fellow Marxist-Leninists that orthodox Marxism is revisionist. Does one really believe that party strategies should not be different according to different societies? Today's western workers have very different lives in different societies (the "bourgeois-democratic" society) than the workers under certain Latin American dictatorships that materially restrict workers participation and involvement in cultural and recreational fields, not to mention revolutionary political activities. Most workers in the advanced capitalist, bourgeois-democratic countries have very different daily activities than many third world workers. In the west, workers enjoy many more cultural and recreational activities in which hegemony within society exists. In sports there is often a culture of calling persons derogatory names (sexual, ethnic, religious insults etc), an anti-collective culture that runs contrary to workers' class consciousness.

    There is as well the simple question of political freedoms which communists had to fight for as a first stage to revolution. In Czarist Russia was a neo-feudal, capitalist underdeveloped dictatorship in which there were no political freedoms for Communists to freely propagate our ideas, organize and build the vanguard party. In Germany however, there existed those political freedoms, and hence the vanguard party in Germany took on a mass party form under the 19th century SPD and KPD later, contrary to the underground and smaller Bolshevik vanguard party of Russian workers. Before he turned a renegade, Lenin called Kautsky "the Pope of Marxism", but yet most comrades are still strictly against applying different methods of organization according to different material conditions.
  2. ind_com
    ind_com
    I think all serious MLs will agree with you on the point of varying strategy. However, the Communist Party has to be clandestine in every country. Its mass-organizations might be more open according to the situation.
  3. Comrade Hill
    What is so revisionist about orthodox Marxism? It's important remember, however, that Marxism on it's own is strictly a tool used to analyzing history, as well as the laws of the capitalist system. Marx did not come up with any specific proposals for a socialist system. Lenin stressed that communists need to apply unique principles to each individual capitalist country and their conditions.

    I'm not exactly sure I understand what you mean when you say "political freedom." I do know that here in the United States, there is no "political freedom" for communists or the working class at all. As a matter of fact, I don't know of any capitalist country where the working class has the actual ability to spread agitation against capitalists "legally." The "freedom" here is nothing but the freedom to express the ideology of the bourgeoisie. Just look at Occupy Wall Street. Old ladies get pepper sprayed because they won't leave the protest, and so on. Occupy Wall Street isn't even a communist movement! Can you imagine what they would do to them if they were advocating for revolution?

    Also, look at the black panthers. They were assassinated by the FBI's illegal COINTELPRO tactics. It is possible for the vanguard to take a mass party form, but there's no universal law of the nature that says it has to happen in order for a revolution to be successful. Being open and transparent about everything in a bourgeois society is off limits. We will use mass tactics deemed necessary by the conditions, and in unique ways of course. However, the notion that the working class must have a class consciousness on a large scale for communists to be successful is idealistic.
  4. Zealot
    Zealot
    Lenin himself obviously had a lot of respect for the German party and seemed to have viewed it as already having a vanguard (before Kautsky's capitulation to imperialism) when he was writing his thesis in What Is To Be Done?:

    "The reason lies in the fact that we failed to cope with our tasks. The masses of the workers proved to be more active than we. We lacked adequately trained revolutionary leaders and organisers possessed of a thorough knowledge of the mood prevailing among all the opposition strata and able to head the movement, to turn a spontaneous demonstration into a political one, broaden its political character, etc. Under such circumstances, our backwardness will inevitably be utilised by the more mobile and more energetic non-Social-Democratic revolutionaries, and the workers, however energetically and self-sacrificingly they may fight the police and the troops, however revolutionary their actions may be, will prove to be merely a force supporting those revolutionaries, the rearguard of bourgeois democracy, and not the Social-Democratic vanguard. Let us take, for example, the German Social-Democrats, whose weak aspects alone our Economists desire to emulate. Why is there not a single political event in Germany that does not add to the authority and prestige of Social-Democracy? Because Social-Democracy is always found to be in advance of all others in furnishing the most revolutionary appraisal of every given event and in championing every protest against tyranny. It does not lull itself with arguments that the economic struggle brings the workers to realise that they have no political rights and that the concrete conditions unavoidably impel the working-class movement on to the path of revolution. It intervenes in every sphere and in every question of social and political life; in the matter of Wilhelm’s refusal to endorse a bourgeois progressist as city mayor (our Economists have not yet managed to educate. the Germans to the understanding that such an act is, in fact, a compromise with liberalism!); in the matter of the law against “obscene” publications and pictures; in the matter of governmental influence on the election of professors, etc., etc. Everywhere the Social-Democrats are found in the forefront, rousing political discontent among all classes, rousing the sluggards, stimulating the laggards, and providing a wealth of material for the development of the political consciousness and the political activity of the proletariat. As a result, even the avowed enemies of socialism are filled with respect for this advanced political fighter, and not infrequently an important document from bourgeois, and even from bureaucratic and Court circles, makes its way by some miraculous means into the editorial office of Vorwarts."

    Lenin, What Is To Be Done?