blindpig
02-18-2014, 12:04 PM
The struggle of the KKE against Opportunism. The experience from 1949-1968
(EXCERPT)
General useful conclusions for today
The opportunist pressure is not a phenomenon which is only related to the specific stance of individuals who do not endure the intensity of the class struggle. It is an ideological political current, a product of the historical era of contemporary capitalism, imperialism. Its material basis is found in the potential for sections of the working class to be bought off by the monopolies through various mechanisms of assimilation and bribery, and in the widening of the working class with sections that come from the petty bourgeoisie. For this reason the struggle against opportunism, as Lenin posed it, is an integral feature of the struggle against capitalism, in the imperialist stage of its development, because – regardless of the intentions of its various expressions- it operates as a barrier to the political emancipation of the working class from bourgeois politics and opposes the ideological-political independence of the labour movement.
The struggle against opportunism is not dependent on whether it is formed into a specific political organization or not, or on its parliamentary or trade union influence. It is not a secondary, partial duty or separate from the task of struggling against the bourgeois political line in all its variations and versions. Particularly in periods like this, with increasing popular discontent and protest, there is the danger of the people being trapped in one of the alternative scenarios of bourgeois management. The effort for the radicalization and liberation of working class and popular masses from bourgeois politics has as a precondition the open struggle against opportunism.
Historical experience of course has demonstrated that the genesis and development of opportunism inside the CPs is not something that happens overnight. Factors for the prospective strengthening of opportunism are theoretical weaknesses, mistakes in strategic elaborations which were not detected and corrected, as well as contradictory positions on the part of leaderships which were proven not to be driven by a desire to adapt to, compromise with and submit to the bourgeoisie, but on the contrary even led the armed confrontation against the class enemy.
History has demonstrated that if the confrontation with opportunism is delayed it leads the party to degeneration, to its social-democratic mutation, to the loss of its historical continuity. This happened to CPs in Western Europe, e.g. in France, Italy etc. In contrast, the conflict with opportunism safeguarded the continuation of the communist character of the party. For example, the conflict which manifested itself at the 12th Plenum of the CC of the KKE, in 1968, led to the withdrawal of the revisionist group which had sought in essence to transform the party into a “eurocommunist” formation. It safeguarded the organizational regroupment of the party and it led to the establishment of KNE. Nevertheless it could not deal with or start to deal with the basic problem, which was the issue of the Party’s strategy, a fact which impacted on the subsequent development of opportunism in its ranks.
On the other hand, the crisis in the party in 1990-1991, which took place in conditions of the serious defeat of the communist movement and the course of its regroupment after the split, made the party examine its course more self-critically, to study issues, like for example, the position of Greek capitalism in the international imperialist system and its relationship with the character of the revolution and power, the causes which led to the counterrevolutions 1989-1991 in the USSR and the other socialist states of Europe, to draw deeper conclusions which are expressed in its programmatic view.
http://inter.kke.gr/en/articles/The-struggle-of-the-KKE-against-Opportunism-The-experience-from-1949-1968/
(EXCERPT)
General useful conclusions for today
The opportunist pressure is not a phenomenon which is only related to the specific stance of individuals who do not endure the intensity of the class struggle. It is an ideological political current, a product of the historical era of contemporary capitalism, imperialism. Its material basis is found in the potential for sections of the working class to be bought off by the monopolies through various mechanisms of assimilation and bribery, and in the widening of the working class with sections that come from the petty bourgeoisie. For this reason the struggle against opportunism, as Lenin posed it, is an integral feature of the struggle against capitalism, in the imperialist stage of its development, because – regardless of the intentions of its various expressions- it operates as a barrier to the political emancipation of the working class from bourgeois politics and opposes the ideological-political independence of the labour movement.
The struggle against opportunism is not dependent on whether it is formed into a specific political organization or not, or on its parliamentary or trade union influence. It is not a secondary, partial duty or separate from the task of struggling against the bourgeois political line in all its variations and versions. Particularly in periods like this, with increasing popular discontent and protest, there is the danger of the people being trapped in one of the alternative scenarios of bourgeois management. The effort for the radicalization and liberation of working class and popular masses from bourgeois politics has as a precondition the open struggle against opportunism.
Historical experience of course has demonstrated that the genesis and development of opportunism inside the CPs is not something that happens overnight. Factors for the prospective strengthening of opportunism are theoretical weaknesses, mistakes in strategic elaborations which were not detected and corrected, as well as contradictory positions on the part of leaderships which were proven not to be driven by a desire to adapt to, compromise with and submit to the bourgeoisie, but on the contrary even led the armed confrontation against the class enemy.
History has demonstrated that if the confrontation with opportunism is delayed it leads the party to degeneration, to its social-democratic mutation, to the loss of its historical continuity. This happened to CPs in Western Europe, e.g. in France, Italy etc. In contrast, the conflict with opportunism safeguarded the continuation of the communist character of the party. For example, the conflict which manifested itself at the 12th Plenum of the CC of the KKE, in 1968, led to the withdrawal of the revisionist group which had sought in essence to transform the party into a “eurocommunist” formation. It safeguarded the organizational regroupment of the party and it led to the establishment of KNE. Nevertheless it could not deal with or start to deal with the basic problem, which was the issue of the Party’s strategy, a fact which impacted on the subsequent development of opportunism in its ranks.
On the other hand, the crisis in the party in 1990-1991, which took place in conditions of the serious defeat of the communist movement and the course of its regroupment after the split, made the party examine its course more self-critically, to study issues, like for example, the position of Greek capitalism in the international imperialist system and its relationship with the character of the revolution and power, the causes which led to the counterrevolutions 1989-1991 in the USSR and the other socialist states of Europe, to draw deeper conclusions which are expressed in its programmatic view.
http://inter.kke.gr/en/articles/The-struggle-of-the-KKE-against-Opportunism-The-experience-from-1949-1968/