Quickly and for the record:
In the mid 1970s, the Argentinean sociologist Juan Carlos Portantiero, in texts that circulated widely among Latin American Marxists, made the point that WTBD and the Bolshevik party design had to be viewed as a translation of Kautsky (and overall Erfurt) to the specific historical conditions of Russia's autocratic conditions. He also argued that Lenin adjusted the WTBD blueprint in his mind more than once and that, of course, things turned out different in practice. So, when Perry Anderson's book on Gramsci (http://mfaishalaminuddin.lecture.ub.ac.id/files/2009/11/anderson.pdf) first became known in Latin America in the mid 1980s, Portantiero had already published work comparing and contrasting the conditions in Lenin's Russia with those of Gramsci's Italy. Others in Latin America, following upon Portantiero's Lenin-Gramsci synthesis, were advocating for notions of the political party that mixed and matched Lenin's war of movements (e.g. in Central America, etc.) and Gramsci's war of positions (e.g. in Mexico, etc.) as required by the shifting conditions on the ground. In the context of Russia's political constraints, Lenin's repudiation of "spontaneity" was well warranted. What I wrote here builds on that background:
^^^^^^ CB: As much as Gramsci's writing is "pleasant to my mind' when I read it, I don't know of anywhere that his theory of organization has been successful in practice to the extent that Lenin's was. So, I have to ask , regrettably, why we give it the same status as Lenin's ? He was a hero, but sadly , never made it out of prison where he , of course, wrote the _Prison Notebooks_. I guess the Italian Communist Party was mass in membership before its revision. Was that the result of practice based on Gramscian principles ?