Month: March, 2014
Terms of Admission into Communist International
| March 30, 2014 | 9:56 pm | Action | No comments

by V. I. LeninLenin

Written: July, 1920

First Published: First published in 1921 in the book The Second Congress of the Communist International, Verbatum Report. Published by the Communist International, Petrograd; Published according to the text of the book

Source: Lenin’s Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 31, pages 206-211

Translated: Julius Katzer

Transcription\HTML Markup: David Walters & R. Cymbala

Copyleft: V. I. Lenin Internet Archive (www.marx.org ) 2002. Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

The First, Inaugural Congress of the Communist International[1] did not draw up precise conditions for the admission of parties into the Third International. When the First Congress was convened, only communist trends and groups existed in most countries.

It is in a different situation that the Second World Congress of the Communist International is meeting. In most countries, Communist parties and organisations, not merely trends, now exist.

Parties and groups only recently affiliated to the Second International are more and more frequently applying for membership in the Third International, though they have not become really Communist. The Second International has definitely been smashed. Aware that the Second International is beyond hope, the intermediate parties and groups of the “Centre” are trying to lean on the Communist International, which is steadily gaining in strength. At the same time, however, they hope to retain a degree of “autonomy” that will enable them to pursue their previous opportunist or “Centrist” policies. The Communist International is, to a certain extent, becoming the vogue.

The desire of certain leading “Centre” groups to join the Third International provides oblique confirmation that it has won the sympathy of the vast majority of class conscious workers throughout the world, and is becoming a more powerful force with each day.

In certain circumstances, the Communist International may be faced with the danger of dilution by the influx of wavering and irresolute groups that have not as yet broken with their Second International ideology.

Besides, some of the big parties (Italy, Sweden), in which the majority have adopted the communist standpoint, still contain a strong reformist and social-pacifist wing that is only waiting for an opportune moment to raise its head again, begin active sabotage of the proletarian revolution, and thereby help the bourgeoisie and the Second International.

No Communist should forget the lessons of the Hungarian Soviet Republic. The Hungarian proletariat paid dearly for the Hungarian Communists having united with the reformists.

In view of all this, the Second World Congress deems it necessary to lay down absolutely precise terms for the admission of new parties, and also to set forth the obligations incurred by the parties already affiliated.

The Second Congress of the Communist International resolves that the following are the terms of Comintern membership:

1. Day-by-day propaganda and agitation must be genuinely communist in character. All press organs belonging to the parties must be edited by reliable Communists who have given proof of their devotion to the cause of the proletarian revolution. The dictatorship of the proletariat should not be discussed merely as a stock phrase to be learned by rote; it should be popularised in such a way that the practical facts systematically dealt with in our press day by day will drive home to every rank-and-file working man and working woman, every soldier and peasant, that it is indispensable to them. Third International supporters should use all media to which they have access—the press, public meetings, trade unions, and co-operative societies—to expose systematically and relentlessly, not only the bourgeoisie but also its accomplices—the reformists of every shade.

2. Any organisation that wishes to join the Communist International must consistently and systematically dismiss reformists and “Centrists” from positions of any responsibility in the working-class movement (party organisations, editorial boards, trade unions, parliamentary groups, co-operative societies, municipal councils, etc.), replacing them by reliable Communists. The fact that in some cases rank-and-file workers may at first have to replace “experienced” leaders should be no deterrent.

3. In countries where a state of siege or emergency legislation makes it impossible for Communists to conduct their activities legally, it is absolutely essential that legal and illegal work should be combined. In almost all the countries of Europe and America, the class struggle is entering the phase of civil war. In these conditions, Communists can place no trust in bourgeois legality. They must everywhere build up a parallel illegal organisation, which, at the decisive moment, will be in a position to help the Party fulfil its duty to the revolution.

4. Persistent and systematic propaganda and agitation must be conducted in the armed forces, and Communist cells formed in every military unit. In the main Communists will have to do this work illegally; failure to engage in it would be tantamount to a betrayal of their revolutionary duty and incompatible with membership in the Third International.

5. Regular and systematic agitation is indispensable in the countryside. The working class cannot consolidate its victory without support from at least a section of the farm labourers and poor peasants, and without neutralising, through its policy, part of the rest of the rural population. In the present period communist activity in the countryside is of primary importance. It should be conducted, in the main, through revolutionary worker-Communists who have contacts with the rural areas. To forgo this work or entrust it to unreliable semi-reformist elements is tantamount to renouncing the proletarian revolution.

6. It is the duty of any party wishing to belong to the Third International to expose, not only avowed social-patriotism, but also the falsehood and hypocrisy of social-pacifism. It must systematically demonstrate to the workers that, without the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, no international arbitration courts, no talk about a reduction of armaments, no “democratic” reorganisation of the League of Nations will save mankind from new imperialist wars.

7. It is the duty of parties wishing to belong to the Communist International to recognise the need for a complete and absolute break with reformism and “Centrist” policy, and to conduct propaganda among the party membership for that break. Without this, a consistent communist policy is impossible.

The Communist International demands imperatively and uncompromisingly that this break be effected at the earliest possible date. It cannot tolerate a situation in which avowed reformists, such as Turati, Modigliani and others, are entitled to consider themselves members of the Third International. Such a state of affairs would lead to the Third International strongly resembling the defunct Second International.

8. Parties in countries whose bourgeoisie possess colonies and oppress other nations must pursue a most well-defined and clear-cut policy in respect of colonies and oppressed nations. Any party wishing to join the Third International must ruthlessly expose the colonial machinations of the imperialists of its “own” country, must support—in deed, not merely in word—every colonial liberation movement, demand the expulsion of its compatriot imperialists from the colonies, inculcate in the hearts of the workers of its own country an attitude of true brotherhood with the working population of the colonies and the oppressed nations, and conduct systematic agitation among the armed forces against all oppression of the colonial peoples.

9. It is the duty of any party wishing to join the Communist International to conduct systematic and unflagging communist work in the trade unions, co-operative societies and other mass workers’ organisations. Communist cells should be formed in the trade unions, and, by their sustained and unflagging work, win the unions over to the communist cause. In every phase of their day-by-day activity these cells must unmask the treachery of the social-patriots and the vacillation of the “Centrists”. The cells must be completely subordinate to the party as a whole.

10. It is the duty of any party belonging to the Communist International to wage a determined struggle against the Amsterdam “International” of yellow trade unions.[2] Its indefatigable propaganda should show the organised workers the need to break with the yellow Anusterdam International. It must give every support to the emerging international federation of Red trade unions [3] which are associated with the Communist International.

11. It is the duty of parties wishing to join the Third International to re-examine the composition of their parliamentary groups, eliminate unreliable elements and effectively subordinate these groups to the Party Central Committees. They must demand that every Communist proletarian should subordinate all his activities to the interests of truly revolutionary propaganda and agitation.

12. The periodical and non-periodical press, and all publishing enterprises, must likewise be fully subordinate to the Party Central Committee, whether the party as a whole is legal or illegal at the time. Publishing enterprises should not be allowed to abuse their autonomy and pursue any policies that are not in full accord with that of the Party.

13. Parties belonging to the Communist International must be organised on the principle of democratic centralism. In this period of acute civil war, the Communist parties can perform their duty only if they are organised in a most centralised manner, are marked by an iron discipline bordering on military discipline, and have strong and authoritative party centres invested with wide powers and enjoying the unanimous confidence of the membership.

14. Communist parties in countries where Communists can conduct their work legally must carry out periodic membership purges (re-registrations) with the aim of systematically ridding the party of petty-bourgeois elements that inevitably percolate into them.

15. It is the duty of any party wishing to join the Communist International selflessly to help any Soviet republic in its struggle against counter-revolutionary forces. Communist parties must conduct incessant propaganda urging the workers to refuse to transport war materials destined for the enemies of the Soviet republics; they must conduct legal or illegal propaganda in the armed forces dispatched to strangle the workers’ republics, etc.

16. It is the duty of parties which have still kept their old Social-Democratic programmes to revise them as speedily as possible and draw up new communist programmes in conformity with the specific conditions in their respective countries, and in the spirit of (Communist International decisions. As a rule, the programmes of all parties belonging to the Communist International must be approved by a regular Congress of the Communist International or by its Executive Committee. In the event of the Executive Committee withholding approval, the party is entitled to appeal to the Congress of the Communist International.

17. All decisions of the Communist International ’s congresses and of its Executive Committee are binding on all affiliated parties. Operating in conditions of acute civil war, the Communist International must be far more centralised than the Second International was. It stands to reason, however, that in every aspect of their work the Communist International and its Executive Committee must take into account the diversity of conditions in which the respective parties have to fight and work, and adopt decisions binding on all parties only on matters in which such decisions are possible.

18. In view of the foregoing, parties wishing to join the Communist International must change their name. Any party seeking affiliation must call itself the Communist Party of the country in question (Section of the Third, Communist International). The question of a party’s name is not merely a formality, but a matter of major political importance. The Communist International has declared a resolute war on the bourgeois world and all yellow Social-Democratic parties. The difference between the Communist parties and the old and official “Social-Democratic”, or “socialist”, parties, which have betrayed the banner of the working class, must be made absolutely clear to every rank-and-file worker.

19. After the conclusion of the proceedings of the Second World Congress of the Communist International, any party wishing to join the Communist International must at the earliest date convene an extraordinary congress for official acceptance of the above obligations on behalf of the entire party.

Endnotes

[1] The First Congress of the Communist International was held on March 2-6, 1919, in Moscow. Fifty-two delegates attended, 34 with the right to vote and 18‹with voice but no vote. The following Communist and Socialist parties, organisations and groups were represented: the Communist Parties of Russia, Germany, German Austria, Hungary, Poland, Finland, the Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania and Byelorussia, Estonia, Armenia, of the German colonies in Russia, the Swedish Left Social-Democratic Party, the Norwegian Social-Democratic Party, the Swiss Social-Democratic Party (Opposition), the Revolutionary Balkan Federation, the United Group of the Eastern Tribes of Russia, the French Zimmerwaldian Left, the Czech, Bulgarian, Yugoslav, British, French, and Swiss Communist groups, the Dutch Social-Democratic Party, the American League of Socialist Propaganda, the American Socialist Labour Party, the Chinese Socialist Labour Party, the Korean Workers’ League, the Turkestan, Turkish, Georgian, Azerbaijan and Persian Sections of the Central Bureau of Eastern Nations and the Zimmerwald Commission.

The first meeting of the Comintern passed a decision “to consider this meeting as an international communist conference”, and adopted the following agenda: 1) the inauguration, 2) reports, 3) the platform of the international communist conference, 4) bourgeois democracy and prolotarian dictatorship, 5) the Berne Conference and the attitude towards socialist trends, 6) the international situation and the policy of the Entente, 7) the Manifesto, 8) the White terror, 9) elections to the Bureau, and various organisational questions.

The conference, whose work centred on Lenin’s theses and report on bourgeois democracy and proletarian dictatorship, unanimously expressed solidarity with Lenin’s theses and adopted a decision to refer them to the Bureau for dissemination in the various countries. The conference also adopted a resolution tabled by Lenin, in addition to the theses.

On March 4, after the theses and the resolution on Lenin’s report had been adopted, the conference decided to constitute itself as the Third International, and to take the name of the Communist International. On the same day a rosolution was unanimously passed to consider the Zimmerwald Left dissolved, and the Comintern platform was approved, on the following main principles: 1) the inevitability of the capitalist social system being replaced by a communist system; 2) the necessity of the proletariat’s revolutionary struggle to overthrow bourgeois governments; 3) the abolition of the bourgeois state and its replacement by a state of a new type, i.e., the state of the proletariat, of the Soviet type, which will ensure the transition to a communist society.

One of the most important documents of the Congress was the Manifesto to the world proletariat, which declared that the Communist International was the successor of Marx’s and Engels’s ideas as expressed in the Communist Manifesto. The Congress called upon the workers of the world to support Soviet Russia, and demanded non-interference by the Entente in the internal affairs of the Soviet Republic, the withdrawal of the interventionist troops from Russian territory, recognition of the Soviet state, the raising of the economic blockade, and the resumption of trade relations.

In its resolution on “The Attitude Towards the ’Socialist’ Parties and the Berne Conference”, the Congress condemned the attempts to re-establish the Second International, which was “an instrument of the bourgeoisle only”, and declared that the revolutionary proletariat had nothing in common with that conference.

The establishment of the Third, Communist International played a tremendous part in restoring links between the working people of many countries, in forming and consolidating Communist partles, and in exposing opportunism in the working-class movement.

[2] The Amsterdam “International” of yellow trade unions (the International Federation of Trade Unions) was established by reformist trade union leaders of a number of countries, at a conference held in Amsterdam on July 26-August 2, 1919. The trade union organisations of 14 countries merged to form this federation, viz., Britain, France, Germany, the U.S.A., Belgium Denmark, Holland, Luxemburg, Norway, Sweden, Austria Czechoslovakia, Switzerland and Spain. The reactionary trade union leaders of Britain and France were predominant in the Amsterdam International of trade unions, whose entire activities were connected with the policies of the opportunist parties of the Second International. The Amsterdam International came out in favour of the proletariat’s collaboration with the bourgeoisie, and rejected revolutionary forms of the proletariat’s struggle. The leaders of the Amsterdam International pursued a policy of splitting the working-class movement, excluded Left-wing trade unions from the organisation, and rejected all proposals by the Red International of Labour Unions for joint action against capital, the threat of war, reaction and fascism, and to establish world-wide trade union unity. The leaders of the Amsterdam International supported the anti-Soviet policy of the ruling circles of the imperialist states.

During the Second World War the Amsterdam International’s activities ceased.

[3] The Red International of Labour Unions (the Profintern )—an in ternational organisation of revolutionary trade unions. It was organised in 1921, and existed till the end of 1937. It amalgamated trade union centres which had not entered the reformist Amsterdam International of trade unions, i.e., the All-Russia Central Council of Trade Unions, the Unitary General Confederation of Labour of France, the national revolutionary trade union centres of Australia, Belgium, Holland, Indonesia, Ireland, Canada, China, Colombia, Korea, Lithuania, Mongolia, Iran, Peru, Uruguay, Czechoslovakia, Chile and Estonia, as well as opposition groups and trends within the reformist trade unions in a number of capitalist countries. The Red Trade Union International waged a struggle for unity in the trade union movement, on the basis of a revolutionary struggle, in defence of the demands of the working class, against capital and fascism, against the danger of imperialist war, and for solidarity with the working class of Soviet Russia.

Collected Works Volume 31Lenin

Hands off the communists of Ukraine!
| March 30, 2014 | 9:46 pm | Action, International | No comments

Via: http://inter.kke.gr/en/articles/Hands-off-the-communists-of-Ukraine/ kkeukraine

The KKE and KNE on 7th of March 2014 carried out a mass demonstration with placards outside the Ukrainian embassy in Athens, against the plans to ban the CP and the communist ideology in Ukraine.

A delegation of the KKE headed by Kostas Papadakis, member of the Secretariat and International Relations Section of the CC of the KKE, and Giorgos Toussas, member of the CC and MEP of the KKE, presented the following protest statement of the KKE to the representatives of the embassy:
“To the embassy of Ukraine in Athens

We follow with great indignation the developments that are taking place in Ukraine, where we see reactionary political forces, ideological descendants of Nazi, emerging to the political “surface” and ascending to the government with the assistance of the EU and the USA.

These forces have already proceeded to:
– Destroy and vandalize the monuments of Lenin and other soviet and antifascist monuments;
– Destroy the offices of the Communist Party of Ukraine in various regions of the country;
– To publicly attack communists;
– To adopt laws that are aimed against the Russian-speaking population and other minorities in the Ukraine;
– To abolish the law that prohibits fascist propaganda;
– To engineer the banning of the Communist Party of Ukraine and the communist ideology in the Ukraine tabling respective draft laws in parliament;

The Communist Party of Greece condemns the above-mentioned actions that are aimed against the political democratic rights and demands the immediate cessation of any attempt to ban the Communist Party and the communist ideology in Ukraine.

Hands off the communists of Ukraine!

Anticommunism will not succeed!”

Manipulation of Cuban Five Case Exposed in Havana
| March 30, 2014 | 9:37 pm | Action | No comments

Via: http://www.granma.cu/idiomas/ingles/cuba-i/25marzo-exponen.html Cuban five

The manipulation and politicization of the case of the five Cuban anti-terrorist fighters, who were sentenced to long and unfair prison terms in the United States was exposed Monday, March 24, in Havana by Nuris Piñero, the attorney representing relatives of the Five.

During a meeting at the Cuban United Nations Association, Piñero stressed the significance of the International Day for the Right to Truth in relation to Serious Human Rights Violations and the Dignity of the Victims, a day established by the United Nations and observed every March 24th.

This is not a criminal issue, this is about politics, said Piñero as she addressed the case which began in 2001 with the arrest of the Five. The U.S. government committed multiple illegalities which must be righted, she emphasized.

The Miami-based media presented distorted information – provided by the government – to manipulate the facts and justify anti-Cuban terrorist actions which were, and are, planned in South Florida, the attorney said.

She insisted that the rights of the accused to be informed of charges and evidence were violated in the case of the Five, which includes Ramón Labañino, Antonio Guerrero and Gerardo Hernández, the latter serving two life terms plus 15 years, in addition to René González and Fernando González, both freed after serving their sentences in full.

Even after so many years, arbitrary actions continue. Piñero noted that the same judge in the South Florida District Federal Court who presided during the original, highly irregular trial, is responsible for reviewing three habeas corpus petitions filed by Hernandez, Guerrero and Labañino, over two years ago.

Justice for the Cuban Five demanded at UN
| March 30, 2014 | 9:28 pm | Action | No comments

Cuban five UNVia: http://www.granma.cu/idiomas/ingles/cuba-i/26marz-Justice%20for.html

NURIA BARBOSA LEÓN

Testifying before the United Nations Human Rights Council, Adriana Pérez once again demanded a definitive resolution to the case of her husband, Gerardo Hernández Nordelo, who is serving an unjust prison sentence in the United States, as a result of his efforts to prevent terrorism attacks on Cuba.

She explained that Antonio Guerrero and Ramón Labañino remain imprisoned for the same reason, while the other members of the Cuban Five, René González and Fernando González have returned to Cuba after completing their prison sentences in full.

“Throughout this time, these men have suffered torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. Their trial was affected by corruption and political motivations, a clear example of which is the suppression and manipulation of evidence,” she said.

Adriana affirmed that despite repeated condemnations of this injustice in the Human Rights Council, the U.S. government has refused to free the Five and the corporate media remains silent on the issue, although many important individuals and organizations, including parliamentarians, intellectuals. Nobel Prize winners and heads of state have called for an end to the injustice.

“This is the Human Rights Council; it is the responsibility of this body to find an immediate, definitive, humanitarian solution, to end this suffering,” she said.

Prior to the hearing held at UN headquarters in Geneva, Adriana explained the major violations of civil and human rights to which the Five were subjected, over more than 15 years of arbitrary incarceration, saying, “My husband is condemned to die in prison, if Obama does not intervene.”

Representatives of 15 countries also took the floor to express solidarity with the Five and insisted on the need to intensify efforts internationally to win the release of the three remaining prisoners.

Adriana recalled that in May of 2005, the United Nations commission on arbitrary detentions, found the arrest of the Five to be arbitrary, given the lack of objectivity and impartiality demonstrated during the trial, and called upon the U.S. to respect international law.

Gerardo was arrested September 12, 1998, along with Ramón, Antonio, Fernando and René. In 2001, the South Florida District Federal Court found them guilty of charges which were never substantiated during the trail, since the work of the Cuban patriots was directed solely toward preventing terrorist acts against Cuba, organized by groups based in the Miami area.

Adriana additionally held a meeting with UN ambassadors from the Latin American-Caribbean group; conversed with Vatican representative Nuncio Silvano Tomasi; Olav Fikse Tveit, secretary general of the World Council of Churches; as well as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Flavia Pansieri.

In all of the conversations, Adriana emphasized the fact that the there has still been no response to the habeas corpus petition filed by Gerardo more than two years ago, and outlined the damage done to the mental and physical health of her husband, and his co-defendants, as a result of the many years of incarceration, calling on the U.S. government to take an ethical, humanitarian position and release the remaining three prisoners.

Also early in the month of March, in Lisbon, Elizabeth Palmeiro, married to Ramón Labañino, spoke to legislators, describing the case, the violations of human rights it entails and the need for an immediate resolution.

Antonio Filipe, vice president of the nation’s Parliament, reiterated his solidarity with the Cuban Five and praised efforts to disseminate information about the case internationally.

Elizabeth also attended a parliamentary Portugual-Cuba friendship group and spoke with Deputy Sergio Sousa Pinto, President of the legislature’s Foreign Relations Commission. She was awarded a special medal by the city of Almada’s Council President Joaquim Judas.

She additionally met with Ilda Figueredo, president of the Portuguese Peace and Cooperation Council, and leaders of a number of political parties.

Open appeal of the Communist Party of Ukraine to the international communist, workers and left-wing movement
| March 29, 2014 | 11:14 pm | Action | 1 Comment

Dear Comrades!

Ukraine joined the list of countries that have fallen victim to the “color revolutions”. Footage of shocking massacres, acts of vandalism, riots and seizures of administrative buildings in Ukraine have been shown to the world media. In numerous clashes several hundred protesters and law enforcement officers were seriously injured, as well as the attacks on law enforcement officers several demonstrators were killed. Do not forget also about the facts of mass kidnappings and physical violence against them radical parties to the conflict.

Recent events have dispelled the myth that in the Ukrainian capital is the opposition to «criminal regime» and «peaceful European dimocrates”

In reality, these facts have resulted oligarchic clans fight for power in Ukraine, and for the President post in particular. Current events are a coup. This is confirmed by the recent actions of the “opposition”, which create parallel institutions of power, and using the name of the people, conduct anti-constitutional actions, further fueling the conflict in Ukraine, forcing the authorities to go for more radical steps.

-has a real opportunity to continue to pursue a policy of subversion against the constitutional order in Ukraine.

All of these organizations are united ideologically, and follow the example of the German supporters of the National Socialists – Bendera and Shukhevich and use identical slogans with them. For example, a very popular and actively used today slogan “Glory to Ukraine, Glory to Heroes!” during the Second World War was used Ukrainian Nazi collaborators during the massacre of peaceful Polish and Ukrainian residents in western Ukraine.

Communist Party of Ukraine has informed the communist world, workers and left movement about the numerous acts of vandalism, when the neo-Nazis destroyed statues of Lenin and Soviet-era monuments, but now they have even vandalism directed against the monument to the heroes of struggle against fascism.

At the same time, it becomes apparent permanent retraction of Ukraine in an even greater escalation of violence. With information and political support of the series after the Western powers in Ukraine, as well as Western European politicians, is becoming increasingly clear who is behind the fueling of the conflict in Ukraine.

At the same time the U.S. State Department constantly demands that the Ukrainian authorities to negotiate with the opposition, withdraw all law enforcement officers from Kiev and enable the “opposition” to seize the government quarter, as well as undo the last “undemocratic and dictatorial” laws adopted by the Parliament of Ukraine.

However, these laws are fully consistent with the Western democratic norms and the actual translation and are completely identical to the current legislation of the EU and the U.S. For example, under the new laws, the Ukrainian public organizations financed from abroad, and which largely contributed to the widening of the conflict are obliged to register as foreign agents. In the U.S. legislation such provisionoperates since 1930th. Ukraine’s parliament just borrowed the American experience.

Accepted norms of law prohibiting peaceful protesters hide their faces, identical to that of the EU. Thus, in Germany criminalized masking face helmets, the use of shields during demonstrations. In France, for the same violations – 3 years in prison and a fine of 45,000 euros. Provided such a ban in the U.S., Canada, and other countries. For violating the rules of peaceful protests in Great Britain there is a penalty to 5000 pounds and up to 10 years in prison in the U.S. – the same 10 years in prison. In the U.S., stroke or assaulting a police officer may entail a period of 3 to 10 years in prison. French occupation carriageway for any purpose and any demonstrations banned.

Somehow, Western politicians, evince outrage and concern over the situation in Ukraine, as well as “tightening” of Ukrainian legislation – do not want to remember these facts.

In these circumstances, the Communist Party of Ukraine believes that the responsibility for the violence equally rests on Ukraine’s leadership, whose actions forced the people of Ukraine to enter the mass protests, and leaders of the so-called “opposition”, the ultra- neo- nationalist militant organizations and foreign politicians who urged people to “radicalization of protests” and ” fight to the bitter end”.

We are convinced of the correctness of earlier initiatives of the Communists for the Referendum in Ukraine, the implementation of which would have been completely eliminated the basis for the popular unrest and that would allow the people of Ukraine to determine its future course of development.

Communist Party of Ukraine declares the need to end the use of force, to ensure non-interference in the internal affairs of Ukraine of foreign powers and their representatives, as well as to the negotiating table. At the same time all sorts of attempts to create parallel structures of authority unconstitutional only strengthen the opposition and create a real threat to the escalating conflict in the Civil War. One part of the population will support the current government, and the other – the self-proclaimed so-called “opposition”, which will inevitably lead to a final split of Ukraine.

In these circumstances, the Communist Party of Ukraine presents concrete proposals to resolve the situation:

 Declare a Ukrainian referendum on the definition of foreign economic policy of Ukraine’s integration

 Conduct a political reform to eliminate the presidency and install a parliamentary republic , significantly expand the rights of territorial communities.

 Adopt a new electoral law and return the proportional system of elections of people ‘s deputies of Ukraine.

 In order to overcome the administrative chaos and ensure strict control over the government and politicians to establish an independent civilian body – ” National control ” by giving it the broadest powers.

 Conduct judicial reform and introduce the institution of electing judges.

Taking this opportunity, we ask you to contribute to reconciliation in Ukrainian society by any means possible to maintain our special offers, as well as to assist in the broad coverage of the real political situation in Ukraine.

We ask you to condemn extremist actions, propaganda of fascism, nationalism and neo-Nazism in Ukraine, as well as external interference in the internal affairs of Ukraine and the further escalation of violence.

The First Secretary of the Central Committee Communist Party of Ukraine Petro Symonenko

Time to grab guns and kill damn Russians: Tymoshenko tape leak
| March 27, 2014 | 10:36 pm | Action | No comments

Here are the people the U.S. Government is supporting speaking candidly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RxSzSWbcxo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Unità dei comunisti e i suoi falsi amici
| March 27, 2014 | 10:03 pm | Action | No comments

www.resistenze.org  – pensiero resistente – dibattito teorico – 25-03-14 – n. 491

Zoltan Zigedy |  zzs-blg.blogspot.it
Traduzione per Resistenze.org a cura del Centro di Cultura e Documentazione Popolare

11/03/2014

Per parafrasare de Maistre, ogni partito politico ha la leadership che merita. E’ la fiducia nella saggezza di questa massima che mi impedisce di commentare ampiamente lo sforzo di allontanamento dal marxismo-leninismo da parte del Presidente Sam Webb e degli altri dirigenti del Partito Comunista USA. Mentre la militanza continua a ridursi – al di là degli “amici” su internet e dei “mi piace” – non resta che meravigliarci della ostinata fedeltà degli iscritti rimasti, una lealtà forse mutuata dai tempi in cui il partito era ovunque sotto un fuoco incrociato. Ma oggi il partito non è sotto attacco da parte di alcuno, soprattutto perché tutto il corpo del partito si adopera per sostenere disinteressatamente il Partito Democratico nelle tornate elettorali e nel pedissequo appoggio alla AFL-CIO [maggiore sindacato Usa] nelle stagioni non elettorali.

A quanto pare sono in corso dei cambiamenti nel CPUSA mentre si avvicina la Convention nazionale di giugno. Ci sarà un cambio di leadership che purtroppo non sembra sarà accompagnato da un cambiamento di prospettiva ideologica. Tuttavia, alcuni nutrono una infondata “speranza” che paralizza il dissenso.

Si parla anche di far cadere i riferimenti al “Comunismo”, la barriera estrema, se si dà credito ai Webbisti, che impedisce al CPUSA di diventare un partito di massa. Per una onesta discussione critica delle più recenti riflessioni di Sam Webb, si veda l’articolo su http://houstoncommunistparty.com/the-poverty-of-ideology/.

A parte il suo continuo declino, il CPUSA conta, seppur con la sua voce flebile, come massima autorità presso la sinistra statunitense sulle questioni relative al movimento comunista internazionale. Recentemente, Sue Webb, che ha rappresentato il CPUSA all’Incontro internazionale dei Partiti comunisti e operai tenutosi a Lisbona nel novembre dello scorso anno, ha fornito un rapporto sull’incontro, evidenziando le valutazioni e le prospettive del CPUSA e di altri partiti sulla situazione attuale e sulla via da seguire.

Gran parte del commento di Sue Webb è un attacco velato al Partito Comunista di Grecia (KKE), con il pretesto di sostenere la diversità e l’indipendenza del movimento internazionale. Allo stesso tempo, sfrutta le differenze tra i partiti per giustificare l’allontanamento del CPUSA dal marxismo-leninismo.

Certo il KKE non ha bisogno di nessuno per difendere il suo onore e le sue posizioni, poiché è sommamente in grado di farlo autonomamente. Ma è importante che tutti i comunisti e i simpatizzanti del comunismo sappiano esaminare attentamente e criticamente gli approcci rappresentati a Lisbona. Il commento di Sue Webb fallisce gli standard di obiettività.

Webb suggerisce, in modo dispregiativo, che il KKE con ostinazione e irragionevolezza abbia impedito l’adozione di una dichiarazione finale unitaria: “Le critiche del partito greco erano così forti da respingere e bloccare l’adozione di qualsiasi dichiarazione finale consensuale che riassumesse il pensiero della conferenza. In tal modo, il partito greco e i suoi sostenitori di pochi altri paesi si sono posti chiaramente in contrasto con il pensiero e le politiche della stragrande maggioranza dei partiti rappresentati in assemblea”.

Nel contempo Webb ha illustrato le diverse strade intraprese dai vari partiti e la loro relativa autonomia da una singola via, citando Lenin copiosamente e facendo riferimento all’affidamento del suo partito alle “proprie esperienze e condizioni di lotta”. In altre parole, ha biasimato il KKE di non aderire alla volontà degli altri, sulla base delle “proprie esperienze e condizioni di lotta”. Apparentemente, Webb non percepisce alcuna incoerenza nell’insistere sulla vecchia linea euro-comunista della via nazionale al comunismo, mentre rimprovera il KKE per la sua posizione indipendente e di principio all’incontro di Lisbona.

L’accusa di istigare la disgregazione è particolarmente inconsistente dato il grande ruolo riconosciuto al KKE nel rilancio degli incontri, delle conferenze e degli scambi internazionali. Nel resoconto semplicistico di Sue Webb viene smarrito il contributo particolare che il KKE porta in ogni discussione sul percorso verso il socialismo. Senza entrare nel merito delle sue conclusioni, occorre rispettare la profonda analisi in cui il KKE si è impegnato riguardo il crollo dei partiti comunisti europei di massa dopo la seconda guerra mondiale. Mentre la maggior parte dei partiti si sono trovati alle prese con le lezioni connesse alla sconfitta dell’Unione Sovietica e delle repubbliche popolari dell’Est Europa, pochi hanno esplorato, nella misura in cui si è impegnato il KKE, le conseguenze teoriche del pressoché completo auto-dissolvimento dei maggiori partiti comunisti di massa in Italia, Francia e Spagna. Il processo di svuotamento del marxismo-leninismo nei partiti comunisti e operai non al governo è iniziato ben prima della caduta del potere sovietico. E’ il KKE che trae i più profondi insegnamenti da questa esperienza. Webb lo ignora completamente.

Non cimentarsi con le lezioni conseguenti il crollo del socialismo nell’Europea dell’Est e il fallimento dell’Euro-Comunismo porta a una lettura unilaterale, distorta della strada che abbiamo davanti.

E’ in questo contesto che il KKE confuta la posizione secondo la quale vi sarebbero delle “tappe” intermedie tra capitalismo e socialismo. Dopo la Seconda guerra mondiale, molti partiti presagirono uno stadio antimonopolista nella transizione al socialismo. Altri partiti cercarono di costruire una fase fondata su una “democrazia di tipo nuovo”, su un sistema di regole che non era né borghese né socialista. Queste strategie comportarono una attenzione sulla lotta parlamentare e di collaborazione con tutte le forze anticapitaliste e antimonopoliste. Il “compromesso storico” italiano rappresentò il culmine simbolico di questa prospettiva, ingaggiando una strategia che aprì la porta all’imborghesimento del Partito Comunista Italiano (PCI) e di conseguenza alla sua inevitabile scomparsa.

Uno degli spacciatori ideologici di questo approccio, Giorgio Napolitano, dimostra, con la stessa traiettoria della sua vita, la crudele tragedia del fallimento del PCI: membro di un gruppo giovanile fascista all’università, Napolitano abbracciò la resistenza, aderì al PCI, assunse un ruolo di primo piano nella nuova direzione e oggi regna come Presidente della Repubblica borghese italiana. Con civiltà e dignità misurate, ha legittimato il governo del farsesco-fascista Silvio Berlusconi. Le sue numerose onorificenze, decorazioni e premi testimoniano la sua abnegazione al capitalismo.

In un’intervista nel 1975, Napolitano, allora portavoce economico del PCI, scansò abilmente le difficili domande poste da Eric Hobsbawm: “Credo che in qualsiasi paese il processo di trasformazione socialista anche nei regimi socialisti debba essere fondato su un’ampia base di consenso e partecipazione democratica… La mia tesi riguardo la sostenibilità dei principi e delle forme della vita democratica in un contesto di avanzamento al socialismo e nella costruzione della società socialista attiene più specificamente ai paesi dell’Europa occidentale in cui la democrazia borghese è nata, in cui le istituzioni rappresentative hanno una più o meno forte tradizione e dove hanno operato più o meno liberamente diverse correnti democratiche, ideologiche, culturali e politiche… [e] che sono caratterizzate in misura diversa… dalla presenza di gruppi intermedi consistenti tra il proletariato e la grande borghesia che controlla i principali mezzi di produzione”. A soli 30 dacché i comunisti giocarono un ruolo chiave nella caduta del dispotismo antidemocratico europeo, Napolitano celebra vigorosamente la dubbia euro-tradizione della democrazia borghese, mentre provvede opportunisticamente agli interessi dei ceti medi. Purtroppo, molti partiti comunisti indulgono ancora su queste illusioni. E’ questa prospettiva fallimentare che viene vigorosamente contrastata dal KKE.

Allo stesso modo, il partito spagnolo di massa, sotto la guida di Santiago Carillo, cadde nella quasi completa irrilevanza grazie al feticcio della democrazia borghese e assecondando gli strati non proletari. Carillo sostenne che “… il partito comunista dovrebbe essere il partito della libertà e della democrazia… Dobbiamo inserire nel nostro programma come parte integrante, non solo le rivendicazioni dei lavoratori, ma anche quelle di tutti i settori della società che sono sotto privilegiati”. Questi vacui e superficiali slogan servono altrettanto bene la borghesia che quelli inscritti nelle piattaforme dei moderni partiti borghesi parlamentari. Nessuna meraviglia che i lavoratori siano fuggiti a frotte dal PCE, comprendevano il marxismo molto meglio di quanto non facessero i dirigenti del Partito.

Riflettere su questi tragici errori di calcolo dovrebbe indurre ad ascoltare gli avvertimenti contro l’opportunismo pronunciati dal KKE:

“Li lascia indifesi contro l’opera corrosiva delle forze borghesi e opportuniste, che cercano di assorbire i Partiti comunisti nel parlamentarismo, di castrarli e renderli parte del sistema politico borghese, attraverso collaborazioni senza princìpi e la partecipazione a governi di gestione borghese con l’etichetta di sinistra o progressista, intrappolati nella logica della collaborazione di classe e del supporto ai centri imperialisti, come avviene ad esempio con i Partiti comunisti del cosiddetto Partito della Sinistra Europea e con altri che stanno seguendo lo stesso percorso”. (G. Marinos, membro dell’Ufficio politico del CC, KKE, In merito al 15° Incontro Internazionale dei Partiti Comunisti e Operai a Lisbona)

Nella scia della profonda crisi economica mondiale dai tempi della Grande depressione, l’idea che i Partiti comunisti e operai dovrebbero lottare per portare il capitalismo fuori dalle secche – per meglio “gestire” il capitalismo – è una strategia assurda, destinata a emarginare ulteriormente la prospettiva del socialismo. Se anche i comunisti (o i comunisti alleati con altri) potessero salvare il capitalismo, perché dovrebbero farlo?

Sue Webb non riesce a inquadrare le posizioni del KKE nel contesto di partigianeria di classe, un errore che garantisce confusione e malintesi. Non riesce a scorgere una differenza tra lotta per le riforme nel quadro del capitalismo e rifiuto di prendere le parti della classe borghese, una distinzione che il KKE segna in modo inequivocabile. Quando le riforme vanno a beneficio dei lavoratori – aumenti e miglioramenti in materia di pubblica istruzione, assistenza sociale, sanità pubblica, ecc, – i comunisti combattono più di chiunque e accettano incondizionatamente alleanze. Ma dove i lavoratori sono invitati a schierarsi con la borghesia – nel sacrificare salari e benefici per rendere il loro datore di lavoro più competitivo, nel boicottare i prodotti fabbricati da lavoratori stranieri – i comunisti sollecitano i lavoratori a starne fuori.

Sue Webb addebita al KKE di considerare le economie emergenti come rivali dell’imperialismo occidentale: “Viene respinta l’ipotesi che i BRICs… o altri paesi, come in America Latina, emergano come sfide per l’imperialismo occidentale”. Ma questo è assurdo: i comunisti vedono questi paesi come rivali imperialisti all’imperialismo occidentale, con i propri disegni sull’economia globale, i propri interessi espansionistici. Allo stesso tempo, i comunisti si oppongono alle aggressioni e alla guerra da parte delle potenze imperialiste in ogni caso e sotto ogni forma. Ad esempio, i comunisti si oppongono con fervore all’intervento degli Stati Uniti in Venezuela, si oppongono all’ingerenza di UE e USA in Ucraina. Tuttavia, non appoggiano le rispettive borghesie nazionali, in contrapposizione ad alcune organizzazioni “marxiste” che hanno oscillato o capitolato davanti a cambiamenti di regime o missioni “democratiche” in paesi come l’Iraq o la Libia.

Sue Webb sbeffeggia il rifiuto del KKE del termine “finanziarizzazione”. “Identificare la finanziarizzazione come una caratteristica particolare del capitalismo di oggi è un inganno, un diversivo. Il capitalismo è capitalismo”, ammonisce il KKE. Bisognerebbe chiedere a Webb, cosa sarebbe il capitalismo se non fosse capitalismo! Sono sicuro che Webb ha smarrito la nozione che l’esistenza di un capitalismo buono e un capitalismo cattivo è estranea al marxismo. La socialdemocrazia e i suoi simili cercano di trovare un capitalismo sano da cavalcare verso il socialismo. Naturalmente, sono in errore: il capitalismo non va in quella direzione.

Il profitto è la forza trainante del capitalismo, è impossibile immaginare il capitalismo senza profitto. La ricerca del profitto modella la traiettoria del capitalismo. Come un predatore rabbioso, il capitalista cerca profitti ovunque: nel settore dei beni strumentali, nel settore dei beni di consumo, nel settore dei servizi e nel settore finanziario. Il fatto che il settore finanziario abbia giocato un ruolo fondamentale nella ricerca del profitto in epoca recente getta scarsa luce sul funzionamento fondamentale del capitalismo. Piuttosto, consacrare l’attività finanziaria come specie unica del capitalismo offusca i meccanismi di base dell’accumulazione capitalistica. E non aggiunge nulla.

Che la crisi globale sia scoppiata dapprima nei centri finanziari capitalistici è innegabile. Ma il fatto che le eruzioni iniziali fossero il risultato di lunghi processi è altrettanto innegabile. I socialdemocratici vorrebbero farci credere che la crisi è stata causata da un comportamento aberrante, una insana fissazione per le manovre finanziarie a cui si possa porre rimedio attraverso la regolamentazione e le riforme. Questa è una sciocchezza. Questo non è il marxismo.

Così, è il termine “finanziarizzazione” a essere una truffa. Un termine gradito da chi è troppo pigro o troppo impaurito per esaminare il funzionamento interno di un sistema rapace.

Non è necessario abbracciare ogni prospettiva, ogni formulazione del KKE per riconoscere che sono loro che stanno prendendo l’iniziativa su questioni che sfidano il movimento comunista mondiale, stanno ponendo le domande difficili che sfidano le vecchie abitudini, gli assunti superficiali, le posizioni non vagliate. Sì, sfidano le credenze convenienti che rendono facile l’interazione con le altre forze di sinistra, ma lo fanno con onestà nel segno della tradizione comunista. Sì, non pongono in cima ai principi la necessità di trovare consenso-per-il-bene-del-consenso. Ma quelli di noi che vogliono ridare vitalità al movimento comunista devono apprezzare – e non disprezzare – il loro impegno disinteressato nel rilanciare un comunismo militante basato sulle fondamenta gettate da Marx e Lenin.

Con tutta la sua furia autocelebrativa di fuggire dal dogmatismo, dal settarismo e dalle idee “aliene”, il partito di Sue Webb è in procinto di cadere nell’oblio. Come nel caso di una nave che affonda, la direzione del CPUSA si disferà prontamente del suo bagaglio. Finiti gli archivi del partito, il giornale del partito, le librerie di partito, le organizzazioni di partito, la formazione e anche le riunioni di partito. Andranno anche i simboli del partito, i principi organizzativi, l’ideologia e anche il saluto a pugno chiuso. Al loro posto si affermano le comunicazioni Facebook e Twitter, le videoconferenze, la causa comune con i gruppi liberali nello sforzo obbligatorio di sostenere le campagne elettorali del Partito Democratico.

Sue Webb dice: “Le prospettive e le politiche del nostro partito si adattano bene alla corrente principale del movimento comunista internazionale come espresso nella riunione di Lisbona dello scorso novembre”.

Magari fosse così! La leadership attuale del CPUSA respinge approcci audaci per raggiungere il socialismo nell’attesa passiva della venuta di un secondo Franklin Delano Roosevelt e del New Deal. Tracciano la loro linea strategica sulle misure difensive disperate necessitate dall’ascesa del fascismo 80 anni fa: un fronte temporaneo con le forze non di classe, che hanno rapidamente tradito l’alleanza dopo la seconda guerra mondiale e la caduta del fascismo. Sam Webb e la sua cricca restano ancorati a tempi andati.

“Corrente principale del movimento comunista internazionale?” Io credo di no. Il movimento comunista internazionale sta crescendo di nuovo grazie, in parte, ai vivaci e franchi dibattiti circa la via da seguire, come è avvenuto a Lisbona. Mentre il consenso rimane illusorio, il processo di discussione è, tuttavia, chiarificatorio e unificante. Ma per i caduti nella rete dell’opportunismo, il futuro è tetro.