 Communists are dedicated to the conquest of political dictatorship by the proletariat, and to its defense. Historically the best way to do this has been through a Leninist vanguard party, a Communist Party. This should not be controversial for Marxist–Leninists, but the necessity for a unified Leninist party will be elaborated on later anyway. In times and places where there is no Communist Party, it is the task of Marxist–Leninists to work to build one. Historically, party-building has meant getting in touch with other Marxists, studying together, engaging in social investigation, building media organs and polemicizing in defense of Marxism–Leninism, joining mass organizations, producing and sharpening theoretical insights based on their shared experience and combat with ideological rivals, and learning to depend on each other, on each person in their collective, in order to be productive. That is, becoming trusted comrades that engage in their common work as a collective and assess and direct such work together. Then once many of these practical collectives arise and connect with each other in a given country, they may aggregate themselves into a properly central Communist Party. So far this is just history — in fact, many successful Communist Parties were founded by collectives with even less experience than I indicate and more so with faith and conviction, though often with help from the Comintern, but I digress. If the process sounds familiar, that’s because it is. Infrared and Midwestern Marx, for example, began as study collectives and then media collectives, publicizing knowledge and polemics and attracting others to their worldview. These other people then organized themselves with people around them or people they met through these outlets, worked together, and came to trust and be accountable to one another when facing challenges that would either be dealt with or destroy their work. This was the case particularly for those who went through taqiyya in the CPUSA for 3 years. Only out of this process was the ACP able to be reconstituted. Here is why the Party itself is so important: If there is no national collective body able to aggregate and assess the practical experience of its members (from the Latin word membrum, which means "limb" or "body part"), then practical errors can’t be systematically corrected, successes can’t be replicated, and revolutionary theory commensurate with real national conditions cannot be developed to guide work. Without such a body, revolutionary work could not be directed and concerted, and would instead consist of the weak, blind, spontaneous, and disconnected whims of people here and there — groping in the dark, as Stalin said. A Communist’s allegiance to the people is impossible without allegiance to the Party. Not to this and that personality in the Party, not to this and that plank of the Party, but to the body and form of the Party itself. If you renege on the need for a strong body of revolutionary leadership, you are leaving the American people kneecapped and defenseless. A people without a party is like a body without a nervous system — senseless. Unfortunately, not everyone who ended up joining the ACP had experience in party-building. Many joined simply because they agreed with ACP ideologically. Many were waiting for a party to come along that suited their tastes. Instead, they decided to do whatever personally interested them at the time. That’s fine for them, but it’s hard to pretend to be an authority on Marxist–Leninist praxis if you do that. Why is such an attitude petty-bourgeois? To think of it intuitively: Because it is an approach to politics based on the isolated “handicraft” or work of an individual, based in that person’s individual sense of what is right and what they and others should do, as individuals. “Thinking for yourself” is a common refrain. This is how they make their living, so this is how they behave. This type of attitude is prevalent among small business types and independent professionals, if you have experience with them politically. They can’t get very far with such a mindset, but it’s fine as far as they’re concerned. And it’s preferable to the similar-but-distinct type of groupthink that prevails over institutional professionals and public or private bureaucrats. But neither are proletarian. If any such petty-bourgeois people were brought into a Communist Party, they must be humbled to the level of the “proletarian work ethic,” so to speak, or else their presence petty-bourgeoisifies the Party, which has been a historical pitfall of Communist Parties. Marxism–Leninism teaches us the petty-bourgeoisie must be won over, but from the basis of proletarian political independence, not capitulation. So what is a proletarian attitude? Think, again intuitively, of how it works in a factory. The workers do small, repetitive, often tedious tasks, contributing small parts to a greater whole. Proletarians par excellence have nothing else than the ability to do just such work. If one proletarian wants to advance himself, as proletarian, he cannot do it alone but must help transform all the scattered workers in the factory into one clenched fist aimed directly at the boss. Anyone who breaks that fist, who “thinks for himself,” who tries to get ahead individually, is maligned as a traitorous scab. These workers take no shit because all they have is themselves. Those who are held as the best among them are selfless leaders, those workers who do their work plus helping others with theirs, who bolster the unity between them all, who stand up for their common dignity and assert the authority of the united workers against the authority of the boss. Deindustrialization, deproletarianization, and the petty-bourgeoisification of Communism have wreaked havoc the past few decades. We must be conscious and vigilant of the dangerous revisionism that tempts people to forget the need for a unified party, to supplant iron proletarian discipline and commitment to the necessities of the situation with the fickle whims and fancies of individuals. If we are not vigilant, we ensure the eventual disintegration of the American people’s best hope, the Communist Party. The proletarian line must be upheld and petty-bourgeois revisionism must be smashed, always. AuthorAnthony Andino Executive of the Massachusetts Chapter of the American Communist Party. Archives January 2025
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
May 2025
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed