Dimitrios Patelis | Revolutionary Unification (Greece)
Introduction.
World War III, crisis and the split of the revolutionary movement.
Every major crisis and conflict in society is born of fundamental unresolved contradictions and their respective unresolved competing social/class interests. The ongoing Third World War (WWIII) is bringing to the surface and highlighting all the contradictions tearing humanity apart, the geotectonic shifts of power on a global scale, the retreat of the frontline countries of imperialism led by the USA and the emergence of the de facto camp of early socialist countries (DPRK, PRC, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba) together with states and coalitions of states emerging from anti-imperialist and national liberation movements[1].
This war is a conflict between the parasitic imperialist rentier states (dominated by the fictitious capital of the financial oligarchy) and the countries that actually produce (essential goods for humanity). The peoples and governments of the latter are taking steps to drastically reduce or even cut off the imperialist countries from their main parasitic sources of extraction of monopoly super-profits.
This war―especially on the fronts of Ukraine and the post-Soviet space as a whole―also has characteristics of a civil (political/class) war, with the goal of further division on the basis of the imperialist practice of ‘divide and conquer’ or, on the other hand, the escalation of tendencies of reunification, reconsolidation and reintegration, with the last remaining and relatively recently revitalised state formation, Russia, in which vast natural resources and elements of the main legacies of the USSR are preserved, as its backbone: Military and weapons systems, industrial infrastructure, research and advanced technology and, above all, a people with an education and culture steeped in anti-fascist and socialist traditions. The escalation of the war for the reunification of the Korean nation on the Korean peninsula and the Chinese nation in Taiwan has similar characteristics with a clear anti-imperialist, national liberation and revolutionary character.
This war is also anti-fascist in the sense that the attacking Euro-Atlantic axis, in order to achieve its aims, instrumentalises fascism, establishes fascist/racist or even openly fascist/nazi regimes, transforming or even constructing whole countries and peoples as private war corporations under its own possession as instruments and bases for its aggression. Typical cases are the racist zionist state of Israel[2], the nazi regime of today’s Ukraine and the government of occupied South Korea.
As in the two previous wars, WWIII also brought to light deeply degenerative phenomena that have prevailed in a significant part of the formerly revolutionary communist and workers’ parties, anti-imperialist, left-wing and progressive organisations. These phenomena show that even communist parties, even those with a long and glorious tradition, are historical formations. The clash of revolutionary and counter-revolutionary tendencies in the global revolutionary process does not leave the structure and functions of the workers’ and communist parties untouched. On the contrary, these tendencies inevitably permeate these parties, overtly or covertly. As a result, their revolutionary character is not constant and unchanging over time, however much the leaderships of some of them may proclaim themselves to be the ‘guardians of communist orthodoxy’… As we have shown in previous texts, the revolutionary or counter-revolutionary character of parties, their development in a more consistent revolutionary direction or their degeneration in a pro-regime direction, is not a personal choice, a voluntary subjective act of a leadership―as the proponents of bourgeois subjective idealism and voluntarism claim―but is determined by a complex and multi-layered historically specific matrix of objective and subjective causes. To ignore and disregard the latter, de facto favours the spread and deepening of degenerative counter-revolutionary tendencies.
WWIII, like the previous ones, functions in a polarising way, because it bears within it, and reveals the contradictory nature, the accumulated and concentrated dynamic potential of progress and regression, creation and destruction, revolution and counter-revolution of the time and context. This polarisation also contains purifying functions, through which, if used by conscious revolutionaries and directed successfully and intelligently, there will be an unprecedented rebirth, unity and improvement of the revolutionary movement. However, as Lenin once taught, in order to unite we must first distinguish our positions, see who is who, with whom we can safely ally ourselves, and with whom we must part ways in order to protect the movement from toxic apostasy and immersion in opportunist degeneration in the service of the attacking imperialist axis.
Which Side Are You On in WWIII? Division, polarisation and confusion in between.
Today, there is a fundamental question on the basis of which we can determine with sufficient certainty and reliability whether and to what extent certain forces remain actual anti-imperialist parties and organisations with consistent revolutionary communist forces leading the way among them.
This question is quite simple and clear: ‘Which side are you on? Who are you for and against among the opposing parties?’
The answer to this question cannot be given through rhetorical declarations and statements of a leadership (very often hypocritical, deceptive and misleading), but by examining the practical contribution to the wartime balance of forces, at all levels of theory and practice, on all fronts. The answer to this crucial question is linked to an objective assessment of the character of WWIII from the point of view of revolutionary theory and methodology, which in turn is linked to the distinction of forces capable of advancing the strategy of socialist revolution and communism during and after the war, with the driving forces of the global revolutionary process clearly positioned
a) against the imperialist axis of aggression led by the USA, and
b) in favour of those who―deliberately, consciously or under the pressure of circumstances, out of necessity, de facto―constitute the pole of the forces of socialism and anti-imperialism.
Two groups/tendencies can be clearly identified from the responses to this question:
- The consistent parties and tendencies that are clearly against the imperialist axis of aggression and in favour of the forces of anti-imperialism and socialism.
- The former communist, socialist, left-wing, progressive and other parties that are explicitly or implicitly but clearly in favour of the aggressive imperialist axis and against the forces of anti-imperialism and socialism. These are parties that have their origins in the social-democratic, Eurocommunist and Third Communist International traditions (now communist in name only), that have degenerated through long successive opportunist drifts, that have become integrated in the regime of imperialist domination, organic components of the state and transnational superstructure of capital, servants of the interests and strategy of the most aggressive circles of the financial oligarchy of the Euro-Atlantic axis.
We must now call a spade a spade, without subterfuge and diplomatic obtuseness: the split and conflict in the global revolutionary movement is leading to a polarisation, to an exclusive division:
- On the one hand, we have the revolutionary forces of anti-imperialism and
- on the other hand (under different facades and disguises), the pro-imperialist forces of apostasy, reaction and regression.
Especially over the last two years, the split in the world revolutionary movement, or rather in what is left of it, has become more than obvious. The main abscess of opportunist degeneration has split open and is already multiplying and causing secondary infections.
The long degenerated, deeply pro-establishment forces of social democracy, Eurocommunism, ‘ecology’ and the ‘movements’ for post-modern neo-liberal rights (in the imperialist countries and their subordinates) have openly and unconditionally supported their own camp in favour of the aggressive US-NATO-EU axis, in favour of increased war spending and the development of the military-industrial complex, in favour of intervening by providing weapons systems, munitions, aerospace, telecommunications, espionage, etc., mercenaries, military officials and instructors. These are today’s social chauvinists who defend their ‘transnational imperialist homeland’, the axis of aggression in the imperialist war, vote for war loans, participate in the bourgeois governments of war. Today’s Kautskyism[3], the ‘orthodoxy’ of the Communist Party of Greece (KKE), while practically supporting the aggressor axis, builds bridges with blatant opportunism, plays the role of the ‘centre’, of ‘equal distances between imperialists/thieves’, refrains from voting for war loans and adopts in words an ‘anti-imperialist oppositional’ stance.
Thus, although the abscess has been opened, there is still a lot of confusion. This is exacerbated by the rapid developments and the position of some parties that have come under the control of the renegades or are influenced by them. At the forefront of the international apostate flock are the now days renegades, the leaders of the KKE, who are usurping a history of struggle and sacrifice to whitewash their apostasy, marketing themselves as supposedly ‘the only orthodox, consistent communist force’ capable of leading the world movement! These renegades serve up their apostasy as a policy of ‘equal distances’ towards both opposing poles, seeing in WWIII merely an ‘inter-imperialist conflict for primacy in the imperialist pyramid’!
Some, irredeemably confused, are still looking for substitutes for solutions and ways out of deadlocks through ‘the beaten track’, idealising phases, relations, and concepts of the past, based on some misplaced and misleading historical analogies[4], etc., and through their ignorance, bewilderment, force of habit and naivety, they are giving more opportunities to the divisive machinations of unscrupulous renegades to take hold.
Thus, a series of wavering and ambivalent parties, groups and individuals, unable to grasp the stakes that have led to the split in the international movement, accustomed to the long-standing routine of bureaucratic degeneration of international bipartisan/diplomatic relations, ritual conferences and contacts[5], seem to be drifting or floating erratically between the two poles. People who harbour illusions about the chances of bridging the gap (sometimes claiming for themselves the role of bridge-builders & mediators), people who are wilfully blind to the daunting contradictions they face, while trying to reconcile and/or cover them up, hiding the disagreements under the carpet, hoping to find shelter from this unfamiliar storm…
No more illusions. The struggle of the WAP against the imperialist axis of aggression and its opportunist servants.
Despite the illusions, confusions and wishful thinking of the in-between sludge, as we have seen above, there are two tendencies, and there cannot be more than two in the polarised conditions of WWIII. The actors of the in-between indecisive sludge can imagine what they want for themselves, their position and their role in the conflict, but as in the basic stakes of war, there is no room for ‘equal distances’. What a vague position means, in practice, is alignment with the pole of the forces of apostasy, reaction and regression, at the heel and in the service of the attacking imperialist axis.
Therefore, in the international anti-imperialist movement, we have to expose and unmask both the extremely dangerous hypocrisy of those renegades who hide behind ideological constructions about ‘equal distances’ and the de facto alignment with these renegades of the intermediate sludge of indecisive compromisers.
The struggle for the reconstitution of a victorious anti-imperialist revolutionary movement will be relentless in all areas of confrontation. The consistent anti-imperialist and revolutionary forces do not have the slightest room for defeat in this struggle. Defeat will mean the immeasurable bloodshed of the peoples.
Therefore, we cannot allow the renegades, those who have been playing for years the rigged game of conspiracies, brazen interventions in the internal affairs of fraternal parties and organisations, with their ruthless manipulative practices typical of the degeneration, undermining and disintegration of the movement, to win in this confrontation: blackmail and coercion from above, negotiations behind the back, recruitment, coups, take-overs, splits, misuse of the parties’ online and financial resources, ultimatums, etc.. Exclusivity in the use of such toxic negativity, such dirty and deplorable means, has been claimed and deservedly captured by the renegades of the KKE, who, with the arrogance of the self-appointed and self-righteous leader/despot that they display, have now lost every trace of comrade morality, respect and credibility among fellow militants and comrades on a global scale, as slimy, repulsive and insolent cynical agents of subversion and disruption, as an example to be avoided.
Marxist science has proven that proper objectives are not arbitrarily imposed, but carried out on the basis of revolutionary theory, which is the only way to provide an accurate diagnosis of the deeper needs and prospects of the working class, society and the movement.
Just as truth cannot be attained through a flawed cognitive process, so the high objectives of the movement cannot be attained through means, ways, paths and subjects that do not measure up to them. Every attempt to pursue a high and true objective by vile, distorted, alien means, and so on, ultimately leads to the abandonment of that objective, to its neglect, to the service of alien objectives and interests. This is what the Marxist approach on the dialectical relationship between ends and means clearly teaches.
Therefore, for us, the vanguard of the movement is sought and positively conquered only on the basis of a scientific prognosis and the setting of objectives that become a revolutionary ideal, a pole of attraction and inspiration with potential, as a documented programme for which it is worth living or giving one’s life. The bearers of this programme, individuals and organisations, personalities organically integrated in conscious collectives of struggle, are inspired by the principles of this programme in every action, interaction and aspect of their lives. They inspire by example, demonstrating the necessity and feasibility of the revolutionary perspective.
The World Anti-imperialist Platform[6] deepens and expands its influence, enhances its leading role internationally, precisely by showing a positive and convincing perspective to the peoples and especially to the youth, by contributing decisively and effectively, but always in a subtle and discreet way, as befitting comrades, to the formation, development, coordination, strengthening and elevation of fraternal parties and organisations, while treating the historical specificity, the traditions of the culture of each people and the autonomy of each party or organisation with consideration and respect. With a consciously sober and reasoned discourse, but also with revolutionary consistency, dedication, drive and passion. With heart and mind, as Marx taught from his youth. In this task, the WAP promotes open and principled collective processes among comrades, laying the foundations for the optimal use of everyone’s creative abilities in our common cause.
The characteristics and the Symplegades of opportunism today.
In what follows, I will try to point out, on the basis of the work of the founders of revolutionary theory, the main paths, the destructive Symplegades that fuel the shipwreck of opportunist degeneration. A shipwreck the disintegration of which is inevitably caught in a death spiral between two monsters/substitutes of theory and ideology: between the Scylla of dogmatism and the Charybdis of scepticism/revisionism[7].
In the sectarian jargon of bureaucratically degenerated parties, the word ‘opportunist’ is simply used as an insult against anyone who does not absolutely, sheepishly and submissively conform to the ‘correct line’ of a certain leadership…
Opportunism (French: opportunisme, from Latin: opportunus, meaning favourable, advantageous) in the labour movement is that ‘theory’ and practice which contradicts the actual interests of the working class and pushes the labour movement along a path favourable to the bourgeoisie. Opportunism directly or indirectly adjusts and subordinates the labour movement to the interests of the bourgeoisie in various ways: ‘Opportunism in the upper ranks of the working-class movement is bourgeois socialism, not proletarian socialism. It has been shown in practice that working-class activists who follow the opportunist trend are better defenders of the bourgeoisie than the bourgeois themselves. Without their leadership of the workers, the bourgeoisie could not remain in power.’ (July 1920, Lenin’s Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 31, pages 213-263)
After the victory of Marxism in the labour movement, opportunism, as a rule, appears under the cloak of Marxist phraseology.
In its class nature, opportunism is a manifestation of petit-bourgeois moods and mentality, of petit bourgeois ideology and politics within the labour movement.
In the organisational field, opportunism initially presents itself as sectarianism, only to evolve into practices of subversion and disintegration of the party and the movement (‘liquidarism’). The opportunist does not hesitate, on occasion, to instrumentally manipulate sectarian and disintegrative practices as long as they serve the strategic interests of the ruling class within the movement.
As for the political direction of its influence on the movement, it presents itself with ‘flexibility’: sometimes as ‘left-wing’ and sometimes as right-wing opportunism. In fact, it is common to see opportunist degenerative drifts into deplorable conservative or even reactionary positions, disguised under radical ‘left-wing’ phraseology.
Right-wing opportunism is trapped in a quagmire of reformist practices and tactical positions of compromise that serve the direct subordination of the workers’ movement to the interests of the bourgeoisie, abandoning the fundamental and strategic interests of the working class in the name of temporary and secondary gains. That is why the right-wing opportunists resort to a variety of revisionist dogmas, such as the fatalist conception, which substitutes the sober study of the contradictory nature inherent in the objective conditions of the development of society with the worship of spontaneous and automatic economic evolution (economism, evolutionism), which projects certain minor reforms within the bourgeois system as the ‘gradual realisation of socialism’, effectively rejecting revolution, the great leap of revolutionary transformation, replacing it with mild continuity, gradual evolution, while basking in the expectation of the ‘automatic maturation of conditions’, with the ‘transformation of capitalism into socialism’ in the indefinite future.
The ideological basis of right-wing opportunism is: the principle of ‘collaboration’ between the classes, the renunciation of the idea of the socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, the rejection of revolutionary forms of struggle and the fetishisation of bourgeois parliamentarism in the spirit of parliamentary cretinism, the devaluation or even total disregard of the role of the subjective factor in the revolutionary process, the gradual abandonment of the preparation itself (theoretical, practical, social, political, ideological, cultural, etc.) of the development of the subject, as history is seen as a ‘process without a subject’ (Second International, L. Althusser, etc.), the alignment with bourgeois nationalism and/or the substitution of communist internationalism with the cosmopolitanism of capital, with the ideologies of imperialist regional integrations (e.g. the EU), the transformation of legitimacy and bourgeois democracy into a fetish, etc.
More often than not, right-wing opportunism reflects the dispositions of those sections of the petit bourgeoisie or certain groups of the working class―the labour aristocracy, the trade union bureaucracy and the parties, who enjoy relatively tolerable living conditions and privileges.
‘Left-wing’ opportunism is a rather unstable mixture of ultra-revolutionary ideological schemes/dogmas and adventurist tactics that force the revolutionary workers’ movement into unjustified actions, unnecessary sacrifices and defeats. ‘Left-wing’ opportunism is animated by bourgeois concepts that overestimate and/or absolutise the subjective factor (with a corresponding underestimation and/or disregard for the objective conditions) that rely on the revolutionary enthusiasm of the masses. It is one-sidedly oriented towards the fetishisation of ‘revolutionary violence’ as a panacea for all ills. It ignores the contradictory process of socio-economic development in stages, advocating discontinuity, ‘pure strategy’, ‘rupture and overthrow here and now’ regardless of the circumstances, and the hasty acceleration of the revolution, looking forward to immediate conquests resembling a ‘cavalry charge’ in the economic sector, etc.
‘Left-wing’ opportunism usually expresses the psychology and dispositions of those sections of the petit bourgeoisie, the peasantry, the representatives of the middle strata, who, under the pressure of brutal exploitation and insecurity, or faced with the difficulties of socialist construction, drift towards ‘revolutionary zeal’ of the anarchist type.
Right-wing and ‘left-wing’ opportunism are two interrelated degenerative tendencies of the movement, which clash, alternate, complement and reproduce each other in different historical forms, through which the manipulation and subordination of the movement to the interests and strategic objectives of capital and the financial oligarchy is achieved.
Lenin, in his work ‘Left Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder’ (1920), revealed the essence and the different forms of ‘left wing’ opportunism during the formation of the global communist movement. In his works devoted to the degenerative phenomena of legalism, economism, evolutionism, the fetishisation of parliamentarism and peaceful means of struggle in social democracy and the bankruptcy of the Second International, he thoroughly analysed the characteristics of right-wing opportunism.
On the revolutionary theory of Marxism.
Let us now touch briefly on the relationship between opportunism and revolutionary theory, the science of Marxism-Leninism.
The global situation is of unprecedented complexity. It is impossible to chart a winning strategy and tactics for the movement without a consistent systematic knowledge of Marxist-Leninist science, without a creative development of revolutionary theory and dialectical methodology. For the reasons we in the World Anti-Imperialist Platform have outlined, the chronic degenerative phenomena have led to an addiction to the degradation, neglect and distortion of theory being the norm. Some still perceive theory in the spirit of Anglo-Saxon bourgeois positivism and pragmatism. In English, ‘theory’ in both scientific and colloquial terms includes any kind of speculation or verbalisation of real or imagined accounts.
On the contrary, in Marxism theory has nothing to do with idle chatter. Theory is the scientific, substantiated, systematic and evidence-based dialectical intellectual reconstruction of objective reality, the laws that govern it and its contradictions (which are not empirically visible on the surface), such as the theory of Marxist political economy, the Leninist theory of imperialism and the weak link, and so on.
However, in contrast to the Marxist scientific approach, some on the ‘left’ continue to reduce theory to a phraseological wrapping of preconceived decisions of a certain leadership, to empty rhetoric and void chatter masquerading as scientific and revolutionary, to postmodern ‘narratives’, without any awareness of the catastrophic danger of such revisionist views…
It is rare to find an individual, a party, an organisation that identifies itself as communist, left-wing or generally progressive that denies the importance of Marxism and the need to develop theory. Some advocate the ‘rejuvenation’ of Marxism, others like to pledge their loyalty to Marxism.
The definition of what Marxism is, and our relation to it, is a prerequisite for the development of Marxism. That is to say, it requires a scientific assessment of the law-governed and contradictory process of the emergence of the historical preconditions, primary emergence, formation and development of Marxism, of its theoretical acquis.
Marxism is an open and developing scientific system of philosophical, political-economic and socio-political positions, which are mainly focused on the theoretical foundation of the transition of society from capitalism to socialism. ‘It lies within the central artery of the development of the scientific method, the central artery of the development of the sciences on society. It was and remains―despite the apparently paradoxical nature of this statement―in its essence, the culmination of the sciences on method, the culmination of the sciences on society’ [Вазюлин В.А. Логика ‘Капитала’ К. Маркса. 2е издание [V. A. Vaziulin, The Logic of ‘Das Kapital’ by K. Marx, 2nd edition], Москва, СГУ 2002. c. 13]. It emerged at the stage of the maturity of capitalism, when the historical conditions for its revolutionary sublation, which are the historical preconditions for the transition to the most developed society, were maturing at the same time.
Historically, it emerged through a complex and contradictory creative process of critical/scientific deepening of the study of social becoming (philosophy, religion, the politics of the ‘society of individuals’, relations of production, etc.), in parallel with the critical absorption and dialectical sublation of the higher acquis of pre-Marxist thought, which were the sources (Lenin) of Marxism. Classical German philosophy and especially idealist dialectics (Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and Feuerbach), classical bourgeois political economy (naturalists, A. Smith, D. Ricardo, etc.) and utopian socialist-communist ideas (C. N. Saint-Simon, F. M. Ch. Fourier, R. Owen, E. Cabet, Th. Dezamy, etc.). The emergence, formation and development of Marxism is organically linked to the conscious adoption of the class perspective of the proletariat, without, however, being reduced to it.
Since its emergence, Marxism has served as a dynamic framework for a number of research projects. The attention of its founders was mainly focused on the study of three interrelated but relatively independent disciplines:
- Human society and its history
- The relations of production of the capitalist socio-economic formation, and
- The preconditions of the new (communist) society.
Of course, the founders of Marxism did not limit themselves exclusively to the above fields (see their encyclopaedic interests on the philosophical/methodological foundations of history, science and mathematics, the study of religions, etc.). However, they never considered their work as a claim to a metaphysical, pre-Marxist type of ‘ontology’, to an ‘all-encompassing’ natural philosophy as a set of principles capable of explaining everything.
During the lifetime of the founders of Marxism, but also today, each of these subjects/fields of research is characterised by a certain specificity and has reached a certain level of development. Accordingly, the ideas, perceptions and scientific knowledge of humanity on these subjects are also at a certain level of development. On this basis, three interrelated but relatively independent scientific theories have been developed within the framework of Marxism:
- Historical materialism or dialectical historical conception of society,
- The political economy of capitalism, and
- Scientific socialism/communism.
The acquis, level of development and maturity of these scientific theories, the components of Marxism (according to V.I. Lenin), differ considerably. The most developed among them is the political economy of capitalism.
Notes
[1] See: Stephen Cho. The Character of the War. Platform-Organ-No.4. September 2023, pp. 64-66. https://waporgan.org/?p=2772
[2] See also: Harpal Brar. Zionism―A Racist, Anti-semitic and reactionary tool of imperialism (Chapter 5. Nazi-Zionist collaboration). Platform-Organ-No.8-Jan-2024, Pp. 10-26. https://waporgan.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Platform-Organ-No8.pdf. From the same author: Zionism―A racist, anti-semitic and reactionary tool of imperialism (Chapter 2. Zionism―a racist ideology) Platform-No.9-Feb-2024, pp. 8-18. https://waporgan.org/?p=3324
[3] See: Lenin V. I. The Proletarian Revolution And The Renegade Kautsky. Lenin’s Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, Volume 28, 1974, pages 227-325.
[4] Today’s renegades, disguised as revolutionaries, arbitrarily project WWIII as supposedly identical to the First World War of 1914, in order to shape it in the image of their metaphysical ideologies, according to which all countries today are imperialist, self-existing structures in the pharaonic ‘imperialist pyramid’, and to justify their practically total alignment with the US-NATO-EU imperialist axis of aggression under the veil of ‘equal distances’… Similarly metaphysical and ahistorical was the approach of the theorists of the Second International when they tried to apply the forms they had adopted for the laissez-faire stage of capitalism to the new stage, to the new era of imperialism and socialist revolutions…
[5] A clear symptom of the bureaucratic degeneration of internationalism, a consequence of the more generalised degenerative tendencies of the movement, is the spread of a form of activism linked to reducing the international contacts of representatives of parties and organisations to a strange field of ‘public relations’, political lobbying, the search for high-level contacts, acquaintances and connections with ‘V.I.P. individuals’ abroad, in the spirit of bourgeois/petit-bourgeois cosmopolitanism, a peculiar form of narcissism and elitism of the ‘internationalist publicist and mediator’, a travel addiction under the guise of ‘internationalist conference tourism’, etc. See also the chapter:
‘International Meeting of Communist and Workers Parties’ in: ‘Joti Brar. On the current state and problems of the communist movement, Platform-Organ-No8, October 2023, pp. 54-56.
[6] Stephen Cho. The three major goals of the World Anti-Imperialist Platform. Platform-No.3-2, August 2023, pp. 63-66. https://waporgan.org/?p=2539
[7] I began my research on the opportunist degeneration of communist parties and its connection with the binary of dogmatism and revisionism as early as the 1980s, in collaboration with and under the guidance of my teacher, the brilliant Soviet revolutionary thinker Victor Alexeyevich Vazyulin. This research is linked to the systematic study of the history and theory of Marxism and the global communist movement.
The object of this study, remarkably rich in empirical data, was the historical course of the Bolshevik Party, the CPSU, the triumph of the October Revolution, the anti-fascist victory and the leaps of socialist construction, and finally the tragedy of the course towards counter-revolution. The escalating degeneration of the party (as a result of which it was transformed from a revolutionary vanguard into a bureaucratic administrative apparatus and finally into a component of the counter-revolution), but also the historic party of the vanguard of the working class of my own people, the KKE.
The historical specificity of Greec’s heroic revolutionary struggles, the country’s position and role in the global division of labour, etc., are reflected in the contradictory history of the escalating degeneration of this party. The frontal national liberation struggle during the Second World War, the tragic ‘civil’ class war, the defeat at the hands of the Anglo-Saxons, the power of the revolutionary traditions, the imposition of a new occupation regime, the foreign bases of the US-NATO, the monarcho-fascist regime, the fascist junta of the CIA, the historical absence of conditions for traditional social democracy and Eurocommunism (a social-democratic type of formation emerged after the collapse of the junta in 1974, while the split of the Eurocommunist group from the KKE took place mainly abroad in 1968), led to ways, rates and paths of contradictory degeneration of this party, atypical for a European country.
The late split of the Eurocommunist group, as well as the necessity of ideological and political confrontation with it, kept alive for a long time the consistent revolutionary communist traditions within the party and among the people.
A strong impulse for the opportunist degeneration of the KKE was given on the one hand by the open bourgeois counterrevolution and capitalist restoration in the USSR and the European countries of early socialism, and on the other hand by the participation of the party in bourgeois governments on the basis of Eurocommunist positions imposed by the leadership in a coup d’état, especially since March 1988. The descent into pro-establishment opportunism was not simple, easy or linear. This is why, in the case of the history of the KKE, we can study in relief the complex and contradictory mechanisms of the escalation of the opportunist drift, but also the mechanisms of the consequent ideological manipulation, with the instrumental use of templates from the dogmatism/revisionism dichotomy.
