Category: Communist Party Greece (KKE)
KKE speech in Leningrad Conference: Our future isn’t capitalism, it is the new world, socialism

Thursday, August 17, 2017

KKE speech in Leningrad Conference: Our future isn’t capitalism, it is the new world, socialism
Speech of the Communist Party of Greece at the the International Theoretical Conference of Communist and Workers parties: “100 years after the Great October Socialist Revolution, the lessons and tasks for the contemporary communists.” (Leningrad, Russia 11-13/8/2017). 
Dear comrades,
On behalf of the CC of the KKE, we thank the RWCP for this initiative and for hosting our Conference Today.
The Central Committee of the KKE honours the 100th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution. It honours the climactic world-historic event of the 20th century which demonstrated that capitalism is not invincible, that we can construct a superior organization of society, without the exploitation of man by man.
The October Revolution shed light on the strength of the revolutionary class struggle, the strength of the exploited and oppressed, when they take centre stage and turn the wheel of history forwards in the direction of social liberation. The Russian working class through the October revolution came to incarnate the the vision of the working class-popular masses, of millions of people, for a better life.
The October Revolution demonstrated the correctness of the Leninist analysis that the victory of socialism is possible in one country or a group of countries, as a consequence of the uneven development of capitalism.
At the same time, October highlighted the irreplaceable role of the revolutionary political vanguard, the communist party, as the leading factor not only in the socialist revolution, but also during the entire struggle for the formation, strengthening, and final victory of the new communist society.
The contribution of Lenin and the experience of the Bolsheviks in the struggle against opportunism (as a vehicle of bourgeois ideology and politics in the labour movement) is of great, decisive political and practical importance.
In practice, it has been demonstrated that the well-grounded confrontation against the economists, the Mensheviks and the SRs constituted a basic feature in the formation of the conditions for the formation of the revolutionary party, the party of a new type, built on Leninist principles.
The systematic efforts to cleanse the Bolshevik Party from opportunism strengthened the revolutionary forces and (in two years after the 2nd Congress, 1903) allowed for the preparation of the party and the acquisition of a decisive role in the 1905 revolution and in the years of reaction that followed, continuing and adjusting the revolutionary line in new conditions.
“An insurrectionary outbreak has once more been suppressed. Once more we say: Hail the insurrection!” as Lenin wrote in September 1905 about the Moscow uprising and later in 1906 that “, nothing could be more short-sighted than Plekhanov’s view, seized upon by all the opportunists, that the strike was untimely and should not have been started, and that “they should not have taken to arms (…)On the contrary, we should have taken to arms more resolutely, energetically and aggressively; we should have explained to the masses that it was impossible to confine things to a peaceful strike and that a fearless and relentless armed fight was necessary.”
From 1905 until the victorious revolution of October 1917, a qualitative difference emerged in the form of the chasm between the strategy of the revolutionary current and the opportunism of the Mensheviks and SRs, who fostered fatalism and spread Parliamentary illusions, supported the bourgeois provisional government that was formed in February 1917, trapped the Soviets for a crucial period and tried to neuter them.
The Mensheviks and the SRs attempted to impede the October Revolution and to lead it to defeat. They fought against the new workers’ power and in a planned way undermined socialist construction, and it was these forces of opportunism that later corroded the CPSU and contributed decisively in the counterrevolution and the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union.
Today, when the consequences of the counterrevolution attack the working class all over the world and when it has been demonstrated in practice that capitalism gives rise to imperialist wars, economic crises, unemployment, poverty and refugees, the opportunist forces brazenly talk of “October”, attempting to undermine, cancel out the socialist character of the October Revolution and its enormous historical contribution.
The truth is that the forces of opportunism carried out an organized anti-soviet anti-communist campaign over the entire course of socialist construction, under the label of eurocommunism or its variants in many countries.
The communists must remember and learn.
Opportunism may change its name and forms of organization and expression, but at each historical moment it constitutes a great danger remains for the communist movement, a factor for its corrosion and co-option into the capitalist exploitative system.
The flame of October led to and accelerated the establishment of a number of Communist Parties, revolutionary workers’ parties of a new type, in opposition to the social-democratic parties of that era, which had betrayed the working class and the revolutionary political line.
The decades-long existence and successes of the socialist society, which was inaugurated by the October Revolution, demonstrated that a society without bosses, without capitalists that own the means of production is possible. This conclusion is not negated by the fact that in this specific phases it was not able to defeat once and for all capitalist ownership and capitalist profit.
The necessity and timeliness of socialism, the potential to abolish private ownership over the concentrated means of production flow from the development of capitalism which leads to the concentration of production. Capitalist ownership puts a brake on the social character of production. Capitalist ownership cancels out the potential for all workers to live in better socially organized conditions that correspond to their increased human needs:they should all have work without the nightmare of unemployment, working fewer hours, enjoying a better standard of living, with a high level of exclusively public and free education and similar services in health and welfare.
The working class creates these possibilities through its work inside capitalism, which are expanded by the development of science and technology. However, in a society where everything produced is determined on the basis of private, capitalist profit, the needs of the working class and the popular strata are crushed. The essence of the problem is that those who produce are not those who decide on the goals and organization of production. The cyclical economic crises are in the DNA of capitalism and are becoming increasingly deep and synchronized, resulting in the sharp increase of unemployment, the further expansion of badly paid work without social security cover, life with smashed rights, with imperialist wars for the division of markets and territories.
The deterioration of working and living conditions, despite the rise of labour productivity, concerns the entire capitalist world and indeed the most developed capitalist states. The capitalist states themselves, their research centres, admit that the workers’ income is shrinking, while the wealth of the capitalists is increasing.
The fact that the preconditions have been formed for the construction of the socialist-communist society does not automatically entail its realization. An important reason for this is the fact that, in contrast with the laws of nature, social progress requires the relevant activity of humans, in this case the class struggle for the abolition of the old society and the construction of one.
The outbreak of the socialist revolution (just as every social revolution in human history) presupposes the emergence of a situation where the ability of the ruling class to co-opt, repress and subdue the people is weakened.
Lenin formulated the definition of the revolutionary situation and identified the main objective and subjective characteristics, which are are accumulated in society on the eve of the revolution. However, as Lenin aptly stressed, this does not means that every revolutionary situation is converted into a revolution. Neither the reaction of those below, nor the crisis of those above will trigger the overthrow, if there is not a planned revolutionary uprising of the working class, led by its conscious vanguard.
In other words, for a workers’ revolution to break out there must be the presence of the revolutionary political vanguard, the communist party, equipped with the theoretical elaborations and ability to predict the developments, based on the Marxist-Leninist world-view and capable of leading the revolutionary uprising of the working class.
Unfortunately, later on the positive experience of the October Revolution was not taken on board and did not prevail over the duration of the Communist International. In contrast, over a contradictory trajectory, the strategic view that, in general, posed the goal of an intermediate form of power or government between bourgeois and workers’ power, as a transitional phase to socialist power, prevailed to a significant extent.
Today, we can better examine the complex efforts of the USSR’s foreign policy to delay as far as possible the imperialist offensive and to utilize contradictions between the imperialist centres in this direction were related to significant alternations and changes in the line of the Communist International that played a negative role later in terms of the course of the international communist movement in the following decades. The changes were related to issues of how to confront the fascist current, the stance towards social-democracy, as well as towards bourgeois democracy itself. The policy of separating the imperialist alliances into aggressive ones, which included the fascist forces, and defensive ones, which included the bourgeois-democratic forces, emerged in this period.
More particularly, the assessment concerning the existence of a left and right wing in the social-democratic parties in the 1930s, which was the justification for an alliance with them, something that underestimated their complete transformation into parties of the bourgeois class by this point. This mistaken distinction was also maintained after the 2nd World War.
These changes, objectively, trapped the struggle of the labour movement under the banner of bourgeois democracy. Similarly, the separation of the imperialist centres into pro-peace and pro-war ones concealed the real cause of imperialist wars and the rise of fascism, i.e. monopoly capitalism. In other words, it did not shine a light on the urgent strategic tasks of the communist parties to combine the concentration of forces for the national liberation or anti-fascist struggle with the struggle for the overthrow of bourgeois power, utilizing the conditions of the revolutionary situation that were formed in a number of countries.
In general, the character of the era was underestimated in the strategic elaborations of the Communist International and the prevalent definition of the character of the revolution was based on the criterion of the position of a capitalist country in the international imperialist system. That is to say, the lower level of the development of a country in relation to the higher levels achieved by the leading powers in the international imperialist system, as well as the negative correlation of forces at the expense of the revolutionary labour movement were mistakenly adopted as criteria to define the character of the revolution.
However, the uneven development of the capitalist economies and unequal relations between states cannot be eradicated in the framework of capitalism. In the final analysis, the character of the revolution in each capitalist country is objectively determined by the basic contradiction it is called on to resolve, regardless of the relative changes of the position of each country in the international imperialist system. The socialist character and tasks of the revolution arise from the sharpening of the basic contradiction between capital and labour in each capitalist country in the era of monopoly capitalism.
In a lot of the elaborations of the Communist Parties, the approach towards the goal of workers power was based on the criterion of the correlation of forces and not the objective definition of the historical era we find ourselves in, which is determined by which class is at the head of social development, i.e. the motion towards social liberation.
However, these mistakes in the strategy of the international communist movement, as well as the mistakes made by the CPSU in terms of charting its domestic policy, together with the expected undermining work of imperialism and the counterrevolution, influenced the developments.
The October Revolution brought to the fore a superior organization of society, which was radically different from all the systems that historically had preceded it and which had as their common feature the exploitation of man by man.
During that period, new institutions of workers participation were developed, the core of which was the workplace; this political relation was subsequently violated, retreating in the face of existing objective difficulties and also subjective pressures. Under the pressure of the preparation for the active contribution of all the people in the upcoming war, the 1936 Soviet Constitution generalized the electoral right through a universal secret ballot, based on the place of residence. The assemblies of each productive unit as the core of the organization of workers’ power were downgraded. In practice, the difficulty of recalling representatives from the higher state institutions increased
They were interpreted as inevitable weaknesses existing in the nature of central planning and not as a result of the contradictions of the survival of the old, as a result of the mistakes of the non-scientifically elaborated plan. Thus, instead of seeking a solution towards the invigoration and expansion of the communist relations of production and distribution, it was sought backwards, i.e. in the exploitation of tools and production relations of capitalism. The solution was sought in the expansion of the market, in “market socialism”.
The 20th CPSU Congress (1956) stands out as a turning point because in that, under the pretext of the so-called “personality cult”, a series of opportunist positions were adopted on the issues of the communist movement strategy, of international relations and partly of the economy. In general, the central administration of the plan weakened. Instead of designing the conversion of kolkhozes into sovkhozes and, above all, of beginning the passage of all cooperative-kolkhoznik production to state control, in 1958 the tractors and other machinery became the property of the kolkhozes, a position which had previously been rejected.
A few years later, beginning with the so-called “Kosygin reforms” (1965), the bourgeois category of “business profit” of each individual production unit was adopted and the wages of managers and workers were linked to it. The assessment of the productivity of the socialist productive units on the basis of production volume was replaced by the value estimation of their products. The process of accumulation of each socialist unit was disconnected from central planning, resulting in the weakening of the social character of the means of production and product stocks. At the same time, by 1975, all state farms, the sovkhozes, were under full self-management. All these measures led to the creation of the conditions for private embezzlement and ownership, relations which were legally prohibited.
In about the same period, the Marxist-Leninist perception about the workers’ state was also revised. The 22nd Congress of the CPSU (1961) described the USSR state as an “all-people’s” state and the CPSU as an “all-people’s party”.These positions caused a rapid blunting- and consequently mutation- of the revolutionary characteristics and social composition of the party. The transformation of the CPSU’s opportunist degeneration into an open counter-revolutionary force was manifested in 1987, with the passage of a law which institutionally established capitalist relations, under the pretext of the diversity of property relations, the notorious policy of “Perestroika” and “Glasnost”. This fact also marks the formal beginning of the counter-revolutionary period.
Dear comrades,
The KKE seeks to draw the necessary conclusions for today, both from the victories and also from the bitter defeats and the retreat of the communist movement. Through a long and painstaking collective process, the KKE has charted a modern revolutionary strategy nad has increased its ability to organize leading sites of resistance and counter-attack in every sector of the economy, every large workplace, in every region of the country.
The strengthening of the KKE at all levels, which was an important issue at the recent 20th Congress of the Party, constitutes a prerequisite for the promotion of its revolutionary policy.
At the same time, the KKE struggles for the regroupment of the international communist movement, according to the principles of proletarian internationalism, the internationalist solidarity of the people against capitalism and imperialist war, which is expressed in the slogan “Workers of all countries unite!”Already, we can see some small steps towards the effort of the creation of a distinct pole based on the principles of Marxism-Leninism , through the “International Communist Review” and the European Communist Initiative.
An integral part of the KKE’s contemporary strategy is its programmatic perception of socialism. Socialist construction begins with the revolutionary conquest of power by the working class. The workers’ state, the dictatorship of the proletariat, is an instrument of the working class in the class struggle which continues in socialism with other forms and means. It is utilized for the planned development of the new social relations, which presupposes the suppression of the counter-revolutionary efforts, but also the development of the communist consciousness of the working class. The workers’ state, as a mechanism of political domination, is necessary until the transformation of all social relations into communist ones, until the formation of communist consciousness in the overwhelming majority of the workers, but also until the victory of the revolution in the most powerful capitalist countries.
Dear comrades,
100 years ago, in this city, the 6th Congress of the Bolshevik Party took a “milestone” decision, setting out their line for the armed insurrection. The implementation of the decision led a few months later to the roar of the “Aurora’s” cannons. Today, 100 years afterwards, the communists from all over the world are called on to study this history, to draw the necessary conclusions, to chart a modern revolutionary strategy in their countries and at an international level.
This is the necessary response in order to deal with the corrosive work of opportunism, to overcome the ideological-political and organizational retreat of the communist movement, its revolutionary regroupment.
The adjustment of the strategy of the communist parties to correspond to the character of our era, the era of the passage from the monopoly capitalism-imperialism to socialism, which was inaugurated by the October Socialist Revolution and consequently overcoming the strategy of intermediate stages, which exists in the programmes of the communist parties, and defining the character of the revolution as socialist, is objectively necessary and imposed by reality.
This direction can contribute decisively to the liberation from political options that operate in the framework of capitalism, such as the so-called “left governments” and the alliance with social-democracy, to lend impetus to the anti-monopoly anti-capitalist struggle, to elaborations based on the requirements of the class struggle and that can contribute to the preparation of the subjective factor, to the concentration of working class-popular forces in the struggle for the overthrow of capitalism and the construction of socialism-communism.
* * * 
Discurso del KKE en la Conferencia Teórica Internacional de Partidos Comunistas y Obreros “100 años de la Gran Revolución Socialista de Octubre, las enseñanzas y las tareas para los comunistas hoy” (Leningrado, Rusia 11-13/8/2017)
Estimados camaradas:
En nombre del Comité Central del KKE agradecemos el PCOR por esta iniciativa y la celebración de la Conferencia de hoy.
El Comité Central del KKE rinde honor al centenario de la Gran Revolución Socialista de Octubre. Rinde honor al acontecimiento transcendental del siglo XX que demostró que el capitalismo no es invencible, que  podemos construir una sociedad con organización superior, sin explotación del hombre por el hombre.
La Revolución de Octubre ha demostrado la fuerza de la lucha de clases revolucionaria, la fuerza de los explotados y de los oprimidos, cuando pasan enérgicamente a primer plano y giran la rueda de la Historia hacia delante, hacia la dirección de la liberación social. La clase obrera rusa a través de la Revolución de Octubre materializó el ideal de millones de personas, de las masas obreras y populares por una vida mejor.
La Revolución de Octubre demostró la validez del pensamiento leninista de que la victoria del socialismo es posible en un país o en un grupo de países, como consecuencia del desarrollo desigual del capitalismo.
Al mismo tiempo, la Revolución de Octubre destacó el papel irreemplazable de la vanguardia política revolucionaria, del Partido Comunista, como dirigente no sólo de la revolución socialista, sino además de toda la lucha por la formación, el fortalecimiento, la victoria final de la nueva sociedad comunista.
La contribución de Lenin y la experiencia de los bolcheviques en la lucha contra el oportunismo (como vehículo de la ideología y de la política burguesa) tiene gran y decisiva importancia política y practica.
En la práctica se demostró que la confrontación bien documentada contra los economistas, los mencheviques y los eseristas fue el elemento principal para la formación de las condiciones para la formación del partido revolucionario, del partido de nuevo tipo, fomentado sobre los principios leninistas.
El esfuerzo sistemático para limpiar el partido bolchevique del oportunismo, fortaleció a las fuerzas revolucionarias y (dentro de dos años a partir del II Congreso en 1903) permitió al partido prepararse y desempeñar un papel decisivo en la revolución de 1905 y en los años de la reacción que siguieron, ajustando la línea revolucionaria en las nuevas condiciones.
“El estallido de la insurrección fue reprimido una vez más. Exclamaremos entonces, ¡Viva la insurrección!”, escribió Lenin en septiembre de 1905 respecto a la insurrección de Moscú y a continuación, en 1906, destacó que “así, pues, nada podía ser menos perspicaz que la opinión de Plejánov, que hacen suya todos los oportunistas, de que la huelga era inoportuna y no debía haberse iniciado, que ʻno se debió empuñar las armasʼ. Por el contrario, se debió empuñarlas más decididamente, con mayor energía y combatividad; se debió explicar a las masas que era imposible limitarse a una huelga pacífica y que una lucha armada intrépida e implacable era necesaria”.
Desde 1905 hasta la victoriosa revolución socialista de octubre de 1917 se hizo clara la diferencia en la calidad, el abismo entre la estrategia de la corriente revolucionaria y el oportunismo de los mencheviques y de los eseristas que fomentaron el fatalismo y difundieron ilusiones parlamentarias, apoyaron el gobierno burgués provisional que se formó en 1917, atraparon los Soviets durante un período crucial e intentaron neutralizarlos.
Los mencheviques y los eseristas trataron de impedir la revolución de Octubre y llevarla a la derrota, lucharon contra el nuevo poder obrero y socavaron de manera planificada la construcción socialista y estas fuerzas oportunistas en los años siguientes corroyeron el PCUS y jugaron un papel primordial en la contrarrevolución y en la restauración del capitalismo en la Unión Soviética.
Hoy día, cuando las consecuencias de la contrarrevolución atacan a la clase obrera en todo el mundo de manera dura y se ha demostrado en la práctica de que el capitalismo da lugar a guerras imperialistas, a crisis económicas, al desempleo, a la pobreza y a los refugiados, fuerzas oportunistas hablan descaradamente para la revolución de Octubre y, en todo caso, tratan de socavar, de eliminar el carácter socialista de la revolución de Octubre y su enorme contribución histórica.
De hecho, las fuerzas oportunistas llevaron a cabo una campaña antisoviética anticomunista organizada durante todo el curso de la construcción socialista, bajo el manto del eurocomunismo o de sus variantes en muchos países.
Las y los comunistas deben recordarlo y aprender de ello.
El oportunismo cambia de nombre y de formas de organización y de expresión, pero en cada momento sigue siendo un gran peligro para el movimiento comunista, un factor de corrosión y de asimilación en el sistema de explotación capitalista.
La llama de la Revolución de Octubre condujo y aceleró la creación de varios Partidos Comunistas, de partidos obreros revolucionarios de nuevo tipo, en contraste con los partidos socialdemócratas de aquella época que habían traicionado a la clase obrera y la política revolucionaria.
Durante décadas, la existencia y los logros de la sociedad socialista, que fue inaugurada por la Revolución de Octubre, demostraron que es posible una sociedad sin patrones, sin capitalistas que poseen los medios de producción. Esta conclusión no se puede refutar por el hecho de que en aquel período particular no logró derrotar definitivamente la propiedad capitalista y la ganancia capitalista.
La necesidad y la vigencia del socialismo, la posibilidad de abolir la propiedad privada en los medios concentrados de producción derivan del desarrollo capitalista que conduce a la concentración de la producción. La propiedad capitalista es un freno para el carácter social de la producción. La propiedad capitalista cancela la posibilidad de que todos los trabajadores vivan en mejores condiciones organizadas a nivel social que satisfagan las necesidades crecientes humanas: Que todos tengan trabajo sin la pesadilla del desempleo, que trabajen menos horas disfrutando una calidad de vida mejor y servicios de educación, de sanidad y de bienestar de alto nivel, exclusivamente públicos y gratuitos.
En el capitalismo, la clase obrera crea estas oportunidades con su trabajo que se amplían con el desarrollo de las ciencias y de la tecnología. Sin embargo, en una sociedad donde todo lo que se produce y el modo de producción se determinan sobre la base de la ganancia privada, capitalista, las necesidades de la clase obrera y de las capas populares están suprimidas. La esencia del problema radica en el hecho de que unos producen mientras que otros deciden los objetivos y la organización de la producción. Las crisis económicas cíclicas están en el DNA del capitalismo y se hacen más profundas y sincronizadas; consecuentemente se aumenta bruscamente el desempleo, se expande de nuevo el trabajo mal pagado y sin seguridad social, la vida con derechos aplastados, con guerras imperialistas para el reparto de los mercados y de los territorios.
A pesar del aumento de la productividad del trabajo las condiciones de trabajo y de vida se deterioran en todo el mundo capitalista, incluso en los Estados capitalistas más desarrollados. Los propios Estados capitalistas, sus centros de investigaciones, afirman que se reducen los ingresos de los trabajadores, mientras que se aumentan las ganancias de los capitalistas.
El hecho de que se han creado las condiciones previas para la construcción de la sociedad socialista-comunista no significa que esto sucederá automáticamente. Una razón importante es el hecho de que, a diferencia de las leyes de la naturaleza, el desarrollo social requiere la actividad humana, en este caso la lucha de clases para la abolición de la vieja sociedad y la construcción de la nueva sociedad.
El estallido de la revolución socialista (así como de todas las revoluciones sociales en la Historia de la humanidad) implica una situación en la cual se debilita la capacidad de la clase dominante de asimilar, suprimir y aplacar al pueblo.
Lenin formuló el concepto de la situación revolucionaria e  identificó las características principales objetivas y subjetivas de la sociedad en la víspera de la revolución. Sin embargo, como señaló Lenin acertadamente, no toda situación revolucionaria desemboca en una revolución. Ni la reacción de los de “abajo” ni la crisis en los de “arriba” provocarán un derrocamiento, a menos que exista un levantamiento revolucionario planificado de la clase obrera, dirigido por su vanguardia consciente.
Dicho de otro modo, para que se estalle la revolución obrera  se requiere la presencia de la vanguardia política revolucionaria, del Partido Comunista, armado con elaboraciones teóricas y con la predicción de los acontecimientos basada en la cosmovisión marxista-leninista, capaz de dirigir el levantamiento revolucionario de la clase obrera.
Desgraciadamente, la experiencia positiva de la Revolución de Octubre no fue asimilada y no prevaleció a lo largo de toda la existencia de la Internacional Comunista. En cambio, a través de un curso contradictorio, prevaleció en gran medida el concepto estratégico que, en general, planteaba como objetivo un poder o un gobierno de tipo intermedio entre el poder burgués y obrero, como poder transitorio hacia el poder socialista.
Hoy día podemos ver mejor que el esfuerzo complejo de la política de asuntos exteriores de la URSS para retrasar lo más posible el ataque imperialista y utilizar las contradicciones entre los centros imperialistas en esta dirección, está relacionada con importantes alteraciones y cambios en la línea de la Internacional Comunista que desempeñaron un papel negativo en el curso del movimiento comunista internacional en las décadas siguientes. Las alteraciones tenían que ver con la confrontación de la corriente fascista, la actitud respecto a la socialdemocracia, así como a la propia democracia burguesa. Surgió entonces la distinción política de las alianzas imperialistas de aquel período en agresivas, en las que se clasificaban las fuerzas fascistas y en las alianzas defensivas en las que se clasificaban las fuerzas democrático-burguesas.
En particular, la evaluación respecto a la existencia de un ala izquierda y un ala derecha en los partidos socialdemócratas en la década de 1930, de la que surgía la alianza con estas fuerzas, estaba equivocada, lo cual menospreciaba su transformación completa en partidos de la burguesía. Esta distinción equivocada fue mantenida incluso después de la II Guerra Mundial.
Estos cambios, objetivamente, atrapaban la lucha del movimiento obrero bajo la bandera de la democracia burguesa. Respectivamente, la distinción de los centros imperialistas entre los a favor de la paz y los a favor de la guerra, escondía el verdadero culpable por la guerra imperialista y el ascenso del fascismo, el capitalismo monopolista. Es decir, no señalaba la tarea estratégica imperativa de los Partidos Comunistas de combinar la concentración de fuerzas por la lucha por la liberación nacional o por la lucha antifascista, con la lucha por el derrocamiento del poder burgués, utilizando las condiciones de la situación revolucionaria, que se habían formado en varios países.
En general, la Internacional Comunista en sus elaboraciones estratégicas subestimó el carácter de la época y predominó la definición del carácter de la revolución teniendo como criterio la posición de un país capitalista en el sistema imperialista internacional. Es decir, se adoptaron erróneamente como criterios para la definición del carácter de la revolución el nivel mínimo de desarrollo de las fuerzas productivas de un país, en relación con el nivel superior alcanzado por las potencias líderes en el sistema imperialista internacional, así como la correlación de fuerzas negativa a expensas del movimiento obrero revolucionario.
Sin embargo, el desarrollo desigual de las economías capitalistas y las relaciones desiguales entre los Estados no se pueden abolir en el marco del capitalismo. En última instancia, el carácter de la revolución en los países capitalistas se determina objetivamente por la contradicción básica que debe resolver, independientemente de los cambios relativos en la posición de cada país en el sistema imperialista. El carácter socialista y las tareas de la revolución surgen de la agudización de la contradicción básica entre el capital y el trabajo en los países capitalistas en la época del capitalismo monopolista.
En varias elaboraciones de Partidos Comunistas, el enfoque del objetivo del poder obrero se basaba en el criterio de la correlación de fuerzas y no en la definición objetiva de la época histórica en que vivimos en base a la clase cuyo movimiento está en la vanguardia del desarrollo de los acontecimientos sociales, es decir de la actividad por la liberación social.
Sin embargo, estos errores en la estrategia del movimiento comunista internacional así como los errores cometidos por el PCUS en la elaboración de su política interna, junto con la esperada labor del imperialismo y de la contrarrevolución para socavarlo, afectaron los acontecimientos a continuación.
La Revolución de Octubre puso de manifiesto una organización superior de la sociedad, que fue radicalmente diferente de todos los sistemas que precedieron históricamente y cuyo rasgo común era la explotación del hombre por el hombre.
En aquel período se desarrollaron las nuevas instituciones de participación obrera, cuyo núcleo inicialmente era el centro de trabajo, una relación política que fue posteriormente violada, retrocediendo ante las dificultades objetivas existentes así como ante presiones subjetivas. Bajo la presión de preparación para la contribución activa de todo el pueblo ante la guerra inminente, la Constitución Soviética de 1936 generalizó el derecho a voto mediante una votación secreta universal en base al lugar de residencia. Las asambleas de delegados en cada unidad de producción como núcleos de organización del poder obrero fueron degradadas. En la práctica, se aumentó la dificultad de revocación de delegados de los órganos estatales superiores.
Se interpretaron como debilidades inevitables de la planificación central y no como resultado de las contradicciones de la supervivencia de lo antiguo, como resultado de los errores de un plan que no había sido científicamente elaborado. Así que en vez de buscar una solución a la expansión y el fortalecimiento de las relaciones comunistas de producción y de distribución, se buscó mirando hacia el pasado a la utilización de herramientas y de relaciones de producción del capitalismo. La solución se buscó en la expansión del mercado, en el “socialismo de mercado”.
Como punto de viraje se destaca el 20o Congreso del PCUS (1956), porque entonces, utilizando como vehículo el llamado “culto a la personalidad”, se adoptó una serie de posiciones oportunistas sobre cuestiones de la estrategia del movimiento comunista, de las relaciones internacionales, y, en parte, de la economía. En general, se debilitó la administración central de la planificación. En vez de planificar la transformación de los koljoses en sovjoses y sobre todo de iniciar el paso de toda la producción cooperativa-koljosiana bajo control estatal, en 1958 los tractores y otras máquinas pasaron a ser propiedad de los koljoses, una posición que había sido rechazada en el pasado.
Pocos años más tarde, a partir de la llamada “reforma Kosyguin” (1965), se adoptó la categoría burguesa del “beneficio empresarial” de cada unidad de producción individual y la vinculación de este con los sueldos de los administradores y de los trabajadores. La evaluación de la productividad de las unidades de producción socialistas teniendo como criterio el volumen de la producción fue sustituida por la evaluación del valor de su producto. El proceso de acumulación de cada unidad socialista fue desconectado de la planificación central lo cual tuvo como consecuencia el debilitamiento del carácter social de los medios de producción y de la reserva de productos. Al mismo tiempo, hasta el 1975, todas las granjas estatales, los sovjoses, habían pasado al régimen de auto-gestión completa. Todas estas medidas llevaron a la creación de las condiciones previas para la apropiación y propiedad privada, unas relaciones que estaban prohibidas por la ley.
Aproximadamente en el mismo período fue revisada además la percepción marxista-leninista sobre el Estado obrero. El 22o Congreso del PCUS (1961) describió el Estado de la URSS como Estado “de todo el pueblo” y el PCUS como un “partido de todo el pueblo”. Estas posiciones condujeron a un rápido debilitamiento y, a continuación, a la mutación de las características revolucionarias y de la composición social del Partido. La degeneración oportunista del PCUS se transformó en una fuerza abiertamente contrarrevolucionaria que se manifestó en 1987, mediante la aprobación de la ley que consolidaba institucionalmente las relaciones capitalistas bajo el pretexto de la variedad de relaciones de propiedad, de la notoria política de “perestroika” y de “glasnost”. Este evento señala el comienzo formal del período de la contrarrevolución.
Estimados camaradas:
El KKE pretende sacar conclusiones necesarias para el presente tanto de las victorias como de las derrotas amargas y la retirada del movimiento comunista. A través de un gran esfuerzo colectivo duro el KKE ha desarrollado una estrategia revolucionaria contemporánea que mejora su capacidad de organizar focos de resistencia y de contraataque avanzados en cada sector de la economía, en cada región del país.
El fortalecimiento del KKE en todos los niveles, un tema que fue discutido en el reciente 20o Congreso del Partido, es una condición previa para la promoción de su política revolucionaria.
Al mismo tiempo, el KKE lucha por el reagrupamiento del movimiento comunista internacional, de acuerdo con los principios del internacionalismo proletario y la solidaridad internacionalista de los pueblos contra el capitalismo y la guerra imperialista que se expresan a través de la consigna “Proletarios de todos los países, uníos”. Ya se han dado algunos pasos pequeños en el esfuerzo de crear un polo distintivo en base a los principios del marxismo-leninismo, a través de la “Revista Comunista Internacional” y la Iniciativa Comunista Europea.
Un componente de la estrategia contemporánea del KKE es su percepción programática del socialismo. La construcción socialista empieza con la conquista revolucionaria del poder por la clase obrera. El Estado obrero, la dictadura del proletariado, es el instrumento de la clase obrera en la lucha de clases que continúa en el socialismo con otras formas y medios. Se utiliza para el desarrollo planificado de las nuevas relaciones sociales, lo cual tiene como condición previa la frustración de los intentos contrarrevolucionarios, así como el desarrollo de la conciencia comunista de la clase obrera. El Estado obrero, como mecanismo de dominación política, es necesario hasta que todas las relaciones sociales se conviertan en comunistas, hasta que se desarrolle la conciencia comunista en la inmensa mayoría de los trabajadores, así como hasta que se consiga la victoria de la revolución, al menos en los países capitalistas más poderosos.
Estimados camaradas:
Hace 100 años, en esta ciudad, el VI Congreso del partido bolchevique tomó la decisión que significó un hito, que trazó la línea de la insurrección armada. La implementación de la decisión condujo dentro de pocos meses a que sonaron los cañones de “Aurora”. Hoy, 100 años después, los comunistas en todo el mundo están llamados a profundizar en esta trayectoria histórica, a sacar conclusiones valiosas, a trazar la estrategia revolucionaria contemporánea en sus países y a nivel internacional.
Esta es la respuesta necesaria para la confrontación del trabajo corrosivo del oportunismo, para la superación del repliegue ideológico, político y organizativo del movimiento comunista, su reagrupamiento revolucionario.
El ajuste de la estrategia de los partidos comunistas para corresponder con el carácter de nuestra época, la época de transición del capitalismo monopolista-imperialismo, al socialismo, que fue inaugurado por la Revolución Socialista de Octubre y, consiguientemente, la superación de las etapas de transición que existían en los programas de los partidos comunistas y la definición del carácter de la revolución como socialista, es objetivamente necesaria y exigible.
Esta dirección puede contribuir significativamente a la liberación de opciones políticas que operan en el marco de la gestión del capitalismo, como son los llamados “gobiernos de izquierda” y la alianza con la socialdemocracia, dar un impulso a la lucha antimonopolista-anticapitalista, a elaboraciones que se basan en las exigencias de la lucha de clases y pueden contribuir significativamente en la preparación del factor subjetivo, en la concentración de fuerzas obreras y populares en la lucha por el derrocamiento del capitalismo y la construcción del socialismo-comunismo.
Communist Parties’ statements on the death of Argentine communist leader Patricio Echegaray

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Communist Parties’ statements on the death of Argentine communist leader Patricio Echegaray

A significant figure of the South American communist movement, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Argentina since 1986, Patricio Echegaray, passed away on August 9th, 2017.
Cde. Echegaray was born in San José de Jáchal on 17 October 1946. Between 1980 and 1985 he served as the 26th General Secretary of the Juvenile Communist Federation, while he had also been a member of the Buenos Aires City Legislature from 2000 to 2003. Patricio’s leadership has been marked by close internationalist relationships with revolutionary processes around the continent, including in Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela, Colombia, and El Salvador.
According to a statement issued by the Communist Party of Argentina, the late comrade was “a selfless internationalist, that always offered solidarity to every people that needed it, to every revolutionary process that opened on the continent, and he never hesitated for a second to commit himself with militancy”. He was also “actively involved in the revolutionary and integrative processes in Latin America, such as the Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua and El Salvador, the struggle of the FARC-EP in Colombia, the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela, and solidarity with the Cuban Revolution, where he forged a solid friendship and political collaboration with Fidel Castro.”
Communist and Workers Parties from all over the world send their condolences. We publish some of the messages, in the original spanish language, as they appeared on Solidnet:
Communist Party of Greece (KKE):
Condolencias del Partido Comunista de Grecia al Partido Comunista de la Argentina, con motivo del fallecimiento del c. Patricio Echegaray
Atenas, 11 de agosto, 2017
Estimados camaradas,
De parte del Partido Comunista de Grecia (KKE) reciban nuestro sentido pésame para el fallecimiento del c. Patricio Echegaray, Presidente del PC de la Argentina y ex-Secretario General del CC del Partido.
Camarada Patricio Echegaray ingresó en el movimiento comunista de la Argentina desde joven, afiliándose en la Federación Juvenil Comunista (Fede) como estudiante secundario. A través de su actividad se destacó como líder del movimiento estudiantil universitario y luego como líder del movimiento obrero sindical en la provincia de San Juan. Fue perseguido en la década de 1970 para su actividad política y sindical por las fuerzas del régimen dictatorial y fue encarcelado por dos años a raíz de la Ley Anticomunista.
Camarada Echegaray contribuyó decisivamente en la concentración de fuerzas juveniles y en la lucha de la juventud contra las dictaduras en la Argentina, desde el cargo del Secretario General de la Fede que asumió el 1980.
El 1989 fue designado Secretario General del Comité Central del PC de la Argentina, asumiendo la exigente tarea de dirigir el PC en las condiciones adversas para los Comunistas que había generado el derribo del Socialismo en la URSS y en los países del Este Europeo. Camarada Echegaray permaneció en el cargo del Secretario General del CC hasta el año 2015, cuando asumió la Presidencia del Partido.
Estimados camaradas,
Por favor, trasladen a los allegados y los familiares del c. Patricio Echegarray nuestras sinceras condolencias.
Con saludos comunistas,
Sección de Relaciones Internacionales
Comité Central del KKE.
Communist Party of Mexico (PCM):
Camarada Victor Kot
Secretario General del Partido Comunista de Argentina:
El Comité Central del Partido Comunista de México expresa su pesar por el fallecimiento del camarada Patricio Echegaray, Presidente del PCA, y por muchos años su Secretario General.
Al frente del PCA el camarada Echegaray presentó una dura crítica a todos aquellos que renegaban del socialismo en los años de la contrarrevolución en la URSS, promoviendo con los secretarios generales de los partidos comunistas de El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica y República Dominicana, una carta abierta llamando a continuar la lucha por la revolución y el socialismo, de gran importancia en momentos como aquellos.
Recordamos su profunda vocación internacionalista en solidaridad con los procesos revolucionarios continentales y su esfuerzo por la articulación de las fuerzas revolucionarias.
Envíanos nuestro fraterno saludo al Comité Central del Partido Comunista de la Argentina y a la Federación Juvenil Comunista, la Fede.
¡Proletarios de todos los países, uníos!
El Comité Central del Partido Comunista de México.
Communist Party of Venezuela (PCV):
Partido Comunista de Venezuela
Asunto: Acuerdo de Duelo del PCV por el fallecimiento del camarada Patricio Echegaray
Estimadas y estimados camaradas, reciban un fraterno saludo comunista
El Buró Político del Comité Central del Partido Comunista de Venezuela, envía el acuerdo de duelo por el fallecimiento del camarada Patricio Echegaray.
El Buró Político del Comité Central del Partido Comunista de Venezuela (PCV), se une al duelo que embarga al Partido Comunista de la Argentina y en general al movimiento comunista internacional por la irreparable pérdida del camarada PATRICIO ECHEGARAY, quien falleció el día miércoles 09 de Agosto de 2017, en la ciudad de Buenos Aires, y fuera Presidente del Partido Comunista de la Argentina (PCA).
Que el camarada PATRICIO ECHEGARAY, ejerció la Secretaría General del Partido Comunista de la Argentina desde 1987, siendo su presidente durante el último año y legislador electo por la Ciudad de Buenos Aires en el año 2000.
Que el camarada PATRICIO ECHEGARAY, muy tempranamente se vinculó a las luchas estudiantiles en la Universidad Nacional de San Juan, y a la clase obrera en la Confederación General del Trabajo en su provincia natal. En 1980 fue electo Secretario General de la Federación Juvenil Comunista y nueve años más tarde asumió como Secretario General del Partido Comunista de la Argentina.
Que el camarada PATRICIO ECHEGARAY, consecuente con el principio y la práctica del internacionalismo proletario, siempre acompañó solidariamente las luchas del pueblo venezolano y del Partido Comunista de Venezuela contra el imperialismo, por la liberación nacional y el socialismo, sin flaquear ante el enemigo de clase y manteniendo la firme convicción de la justeza en la causa proletaria.
Que el camarada PATRICIO ECHEGARAY, se involucró activamente en los procesos revolucionarios en la región, como la revolución Sandinista en Nicaragua, en el Salvador, la revolución Cubana, la lucha de la guerrilla de las FARC-EP en Colombia y el proceso Bolivariano en Venezuela, siendo permanente propulsor de la unidad latinoamericana-caribeña y consecuente con la revolución de Octubre.
Que el camarada PATRICIO ECHEGARAY, siempre cumplió las directrices de su amado Partido Comunista de la Argentina, para dotar al proletariado, al campesinado, a las mujeres y jóvenes de su pueblo, de las herramientas teóricas y los instrumentos orgánicos que le permitiesen acumular fuerzas para alcanzar la Liberación Nacional de su pueblo y construir el Socialismo.
Que el camarada PATRICIO ECHEGARAY, a la edad de casi 70 años fue un destacado militante comunista, que durante toda su vida dedicó esfuerzos a la construcción y defensa del Partido Comunista de la Argentina, en procura de la conquista de una sociedad de justicia social, libertad y felicidad para el pueblo trabajador Argentino: la Sociedad Socialista-Comunista.
Primero: Hacer llegar a sus familiares y seres más allegados, así como a toda la militancia del Partido Comunista de la Argentina y de la Federación Juvenil Comunista, quienes en vida le amaron entrañablemente, nuestras expresiones de solidaridad y condolencias ante tan lamentable perdida.
Segundo: Rendir merecido homenaje al camarada PATRICIO ECHEGARAY, con el compromiso de proseguir y profundizar la lucha a la que el dedicó todas sus fuerzas y esperanzas, siguiendo consecuentemente su enaltecedor ejemplo, teniendo como referente la gran fortaleza que le acompañó siempre.
Tercero: Hacer llegar el presente acuerdo a sus familiares, amigos, a toda la militancia del Partido Comunista de la Argentina, de la Federación Juvenil Comunista y darle la mayor difusión.
Los que mueren por la vida no pueden llamarse muertos!!
Hasta Siempre Camarada!!
Honor y Gloria!!
Caracas, 10 de Agosto de 2017.
Communist Party of Chile (PCCh):
El Partido Comunista de Chile expresa su profundo pesar y sus sentidas condolencias al Partido Comunista de la Argentina, a su militancia y al conjunto del pueblo argentino por el fallecimiento del Compañero Patricio Echegaray.
Reconocemos en su persona a un revolucionario ejemplar que dedicó toda su vida a luchar por los intereses más sentidos de su pueblo. Su consecuencia se hizo patente desde que era estudiante secundario y se manifestó en cada uno de los ámbitos donde asumió importantes tareas: trabajando con la juventud y encabezando la Fede; en su calidad de dirigente del movimiento sindical; como parlamentario; y ocupando responsabilidades de primer orden en el Partido Comunista de la Argentina, llegando a ser Secretario General y Presidente de su Partido.
También resaltamos su profundo y activo internacionalismo, su apoyo incondicional a todas las luchas anti-imperialistas, especialmente en Nuestra América. Nuestro pueblo y nuestro Partido conocieron de primera mano esa solidaridad concreta y efectiva durante nuestra lucha contra la dictadura pinochetista recibida del Partido Comunista de la Argentina y de la Fede, cuando el Compañero Echegaray encabezaba esa organización. Era cuando más necesitábamos esa solidaridad y cuando era más riesgoso brindarla, pero siempre estuvo presente.
Nuestro Partido inclina sus banderas ante la desaparición física del Compañero Echegaray, pero con plena seguridad de que su consecuencia revolucionaria y compromiso internacionalista será recordado como ejemplo imperecedero por las generaciones actuales y futuras de revolucionarios que aspiran a construir sociedades justas, democráticas y solidarias que avancen hacia el socialismo y el comunismo.
Santiago de Chile, 10 de agosto, 2017.
Communist Party of Ecuador (PCE):
Ante el sensible fallecimiento del camarada PATRICIO ECHEGARAY, el PARTIDO COMUNISTA DEL ECUADOR, su Comité Central, la militancia del Partido y Juventud expresa su mas profunda condolencia a sus familiares y amigos y en particular al Comité Central del Partido Comunista de Argentina, su militancia y a todos los jóvenes de la Federación Juvenil Comunista que han perdido al gran orientador de sus luchas, al camarada a quien entregaron toda su confianza como símbolo de vuestro Partido.
La historia de este insigne comunista data de su formación en la Federación Juvenil donde ocupo en forma disciplinada las más altas responsabilidades, que no solo le fueron reconocidas en su país sino también en el exterior como un internacionalista de primera línea a quien vimos luchando contra el fascismo, el imperialismo yanqui en todos los lugares donde este se manifestaren aplicando la guerra, la destrucción de los pueblos y las rapiñas de sus riquezas.
En este plano, la clase obrera, los campesinos, artesanos, artistas, intelectuales, el pueblo argentino ha perdido uno de sus grandes luchadores, cuya vida queda como ejemplo para la posteridad.
Por muchos años la dirección del Partido Comunista de Argentina y hasta este 9 de Agosto lo ha tenido como su máximo dirigente, en el cual no solo vieron a severo dirigente, sino también al camarada y amigo que no dejo de estar a su lado en los más difíciles momentos.
Nuestro Partido lo consideró siempre como su militante, sus palabras y consejos forman parte de nuestra historia como lo fueron los insignes dirigentes que le precedieron.
El XVI Encuentro de los Partidos Comunistas y obreros del Mundo realizado en nuestro país, donde su camaradería lo vinculo con la militancia del Partido y la Juventud, dejando su imagen permanente en nuestras banderas.
Winston Alarcón Elizalde
Secretario General
Who is to blame for Greece’s disastrous wildfires?

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Who is to blame for Greece’s disastrous wildfires?

Firefighters in Greece battle wildfires northeast of Athens for a third day trying to prevent a blaze that scorched thousands of hectares of pine forest from spreading further. The fire near Athens started in Kalamos, a coastal holiday spot some 45 km (30 miles) northeast of the capital, and spread to three more towns, damaging dozens of homes. A state of emergency was declared in the area.

On Monday 14 August, firefighters battled more than 90 forest fires across Greece, an outbreak fed by dry winds and hot weather that saw blazes burning near Athens, in the Peloponnese, and on the Ionian islands of Zakynthos and Kefalonia.
ΚΚΕ: Both SYRIZA and New Democracy share responsibility for their policies over forest protection, land commercialization, privatization of firefighting services.
Communicating with the Citizens Protection Minister Nikos Toskas, the parliamentary representative of the Communist Party of Greece Thanasis Pafilis asked for measures in order to combat wildfires, while a KKE group headed by MP Giannis Giokas visited the area of Varnavas in Attica. 
In a statement issued on Monday, the KKE mentions: “The existence of a possible arson plan based on the commercialization of the land, not only does not decrease, but increases the responsibilities of the SYRIZA-ANEL government which, following the policy of the ND-PASOK governments, maintains and strengthens the under-funding and the huge deficiencies in the sector of forest protection and firefighting. As a result of that, the “fight” between the SYRIZA-ANEL government and New Democracy over the burned land, cannot hide their guilt for their “incendiary” policy”. (Source:

Michalis Michael, Firefighter (retired): “All governments dismantled forest protection”.
In an interview with Real FM radio, the retired firefighter and KKE member Michalis Michael, underlined that the state authorities should be ready to combat the weather conditions, the many fronts and any arson plan but it is not because the policy of the governments is to shrink spending on fire protection.
As Michael said, since 2009 and each following year, 120 million Euros have been reduced from the Firefighting Service budget and added that hundreds of firefighting vehicles are stationary due to faults, because the necessary credits do not exist. 
Moreover, he said that the force of the Firefighting Service has been decreased by 4,000 seats in the permanent, while the aim is the privatization that has already taken place with air-firefighting and commercialization, the sale of fire safety as it has been done with Fraport, as well as of the privatized road axes. 
KKE: Denounces Trump’s provocative threats, expresses solidarity with the Venezuelan people

Monday, August 14, 2017

KKE: Denounces Trump’s provocative threats, expresses solidarity with the Venezuelan people
Regarding the provocative threats of U.S. President Donald Trump against Venezuela, the Press Office of the CC of the Communist Party of Greece issued the following statement:
“The KKE denounces the provocative threats of the president of the USA Donald Trump about the capability of a military attack against Venezuela. It (the KKE) expresses its internationalist solidarity to the working class and the popular strata of Venezuela. The developments in this country is a matter of her people, who are the only power that can give solution to the sharpened problems in the country, towards the road of overthrow and abolition of the basis which creates unemployment, poverty, the capitalist exploitation.
The threats against Venezuela, as well as the threats against North Korea, are very dangerous, they are connected to the sharpening of the inter-imperialist contraditions and the known imperialist practice of creating and using pretexts, like the USA did with their other allies, in the previous wars and interventions.
The interests of our people, as well as of the other peoples, highlight the need for the intensification of the struggle against imperialist threats, interventions and wars.
The power is in the antimonopoly anticapitalist struggle for the overthrow of the capitalist barbarity, for the new socialist society.”
Source: / Translation: In Defense of Communism.
International conference honoring the centennial of the October Revolution began in Leningrad

Saturday, August 12, 2017

International conference honoring the centennial of the October Revolution began in Leningrad
The works of the international scientific conference honoring the 100 years since the 1917 October Revolution began on Friday in St.Petersburg (Leningrad), Russia. 
The subject of the conference, which is hosted by the Russian Communist Workers Party (RCWP), is “the Centennial of the Great October Socialist Revolution. Lessons and tasks for the contemporary communists”, while numerous communist and workers parties from all over the world are participating.
The Communist Party of Greece is represented by the member of its Political Bureau Giorgos Marinos and Elissaios Vagenas, member of the Central Commitee and head of the international relations section of the CC.
The opening speech of the conference was made by the First Secretary of the CC of the RCWP Viktor Tyulkin who, among other things, said that “the great achievements of the soviet power, of the USSR and the other socialist countries speak by themselves. The Great October Socialist Revolution was the greatest event of human history”
Cde Tyulkin pointed out that in the contemporary conditions “the major task of the communists, as Lenin was saying, is the preservation of the revolutionary character of their Party”. He also refered to the evaluation of the RCWP that the “right deviation, opportunism, continues being powerful today in the international communist movement and is developing, as the examples of a series of governmental parties which keep their communist names has shown”. 
In the upcoming posts, we will publish some interesting contributions made by the participating parties. 

TRUTH AND LIES ABOUT SOCIALISM – Dictatorship of the Proletariat: A Higher form of Democracy

Thursday, August 3, 2017

TRUTH AND LIES ABOUT SOCIALISM – Dictatorship of the Proletariat: A Higher form of Democracy
Central Council of the Communist Youth of Greece (KNE).
Published by Synchroni Epochi, 2013.
The leap that takes place during the socialist construction, i.e. during the transition from capitalism to communism, is qualitatively higher than any previous one, since communist relations, as non-exploitative, cannot be formed in capitalism. The political revolution is the precondition for these new relations to be imposed and dominate, i.e. the conquest of power by the working class and the establishment of its own state, the dictatorship of the proletariat. 
This is a basic difference in the transition to the communist socioeconomic formation in relation with the previous. In the framework of the transition from an exploitative socioeconomic formation to another, the new relations could be developed and dominate first in the confines of the previous socioeconomic formation and then, as the last part of this process, the class that was the bearer of the new relations struggled for and took power. This happened for example in relation to capitalism. 
Capitalist relations were first developed and dominated within the confines of feudalism, which brought about an unavoidable conflict between the rising bourgeois class and the class of the feudalnobility that was declining. The great bourgeois revolutions completed the absolute domination of the bourgeoisie through the seizure of political power, which of course was necessary in order for the capitalist relations to dominate everywhere and become fully developed. 
But, communist relations are non-exploitative relations. Only their preconditions are developed within capitalism. Their appearance and domination requires the abolition of capitalist ownership of the means of production, which can only be done after having overthrown capitalist power and its state.
Thus, the dictatorship of the proletariat has a ‘’double’’ duty. On the one hand to suppress and overcome the efforts of capitalists to retake the power, on the other to form and develop the new relations, a task that is longterm and includes the whole period of the socialist construction, which is the period of the social revolution.
The task of the revolutionary workers’ power is to deepen and expand the communist relations in production and distribution, to form the new communist consciousness, the new man. This task is complex and long-term and includes economic, political, cultural, educational activity of the dictatorship of the proletariat, under the guidance of the Communist Party.
The core of power and the character of the organs of power.
Revolutionary workers’ power, the dictatorship of the proletariat, expresses a higher form of democracy, having as a basic feature the active participation of the working class in the construction of the socialist society.
Democratic centralism is a fundamental principle in the formation and functioning of the socialist state the direction of the production unit, every social service. That is, the united will and action of society in the direction of socialist construction, the active participation in making and implementing decisions, the subordination of the will of the minority to the will of the majority, the ability to elect and recall the organs of power. Revolutionary workers’ power will be based on institutions that will be born from the revolutionary struggle of the working class and its allies. The bourgeois institutions will be replaced, after being overturned, by the new institutions of workers’ power.
The Communist Party of Greece through its resolutions has set some basic principles regarding the characteristics of the workers’ power, the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The representatives in the organs of power will be elected and recalled (if necessary) by the assemblies of the workers in the production unit, decisions will be made, control will be exercised . The representatives for the intermediate institutions will be elected and recalled directly ; there will be indirect representation through the assemblies of the representatives of the highest organs of power (i.e. the representatives to the intermediate organs will elect the representatives to the highest organs of power). The representatives will not have privileges, they will have responsibilities and they will be accountable ‘’to those below’’.
The organs of power that are elected by the workers in the production units have as their tasks the specialization of the central planning, the implementation of the tasks of social production, the social services, the cultural development, the protection of the revolution. There, at the level of the production unit, the participation of the working class is established and ensured, from the ‘’bottom’’ to the ‘’top’’, as is the exercise of workers’ control, the criticism of decisions and decrees, complaints about arbitrary and subjective attitudes, bureaucratic attitudes, weaknesses and deficiencies that can appear during the socialist period.  
The workers’ collectives are accountable and monitored in order to promote the collective decisions of the higher organs of the workers’ power, which have the overall responsibility of guidance, specifying the goals of each project that is decided on in the context of central planning. The effectiveness or otherwise of each project is associated with the ability to understand the scientific laws in order to produce for the expanded satisfaction of social needs. The effectiveness of the project is tested in life itself, by practical experience itself. It is confirmed by the participation of the working masses in the control and the management of power.
Workers’ participation in the control and the management of the power is guaranteed by the reduction of working time, which enables the development of the cultural and educational level of the workers. Besides, the dictatorship of the proletariat means just that: The state of the workers is based on the organization of the working masses and their participation in the management, the organisation of the production and all services, the control of the administrative machinery, planning and its implementation. 
With special provisions, it the participation in the organs of power for sections of the population who are not in the process of the production will also be ensured. For example, young men and women who are still out of production because they are in the educational process will take part in the election of representatives through the educational units. In a similar manner the participation of the non-working women, the pensioners, will be guaranteed etc. 
The highest organ of workers’ power is an organ of workers. It legislates and administers at the same time, within its framework there is a division between legislative, executive, supervisory and disciplinary powers. It is not a parliament. The representatives that participate are not permanent but subject to recall, they don’t have financial or other benefits, they are not cut off from production, from their work, but they are detached for the duration of their term. 
On the basis of the new relations of production, social ownership, central planning, workers’ control, a new revolutionary constitution and legislation is formed to correspond to these new social relations and defend them. Similarly the entire legal system, all the legal establishment of the new social relations is also formed. A new judicial system is established, which is based on revolutionary popular institutions of justice. The new courts are under the direct responsibility of the organs of the workers’ power. They consist of people’s judges that will be elected and recalled by the people itself, and by a permanent judicial staff that will be accountable to the institutions of workers’ power.
The revolutionary workers’ power replaces all the old mechanisms of administration that receives with new ones, corresponding to the character of the proletarian state. 
The new organs of the revolutionary protection and defence are based on the workers’ and peoples’ participation, but also on permanent professional personnel. In place of the bourgeois army and the repressive forces new institutions are created on the basis of the armed revolutionary struggle in order to crush the resistance of the exploiters and to defend the revolution and socialist construction. 
Historical experience of the USSR.
The new state power that emerged from the October Revolution had to face a lot of problems and complex conditions; the working class was a minority within a population of farmers that were in a state of political and cultural backwardness. It was from the very first moment encircled by the counter-revolutionary activity and imperialist attack. A huge part of the vanguard of the working class was lost because of the imperialist intervention and the civil war. Initially, it had to utilize sections of the old bureaucracy and bourgeois specialists in sectors of the economy, production and administration, while the kulaks (the bourgeoisie in the villages) maintained great power in the countryside; they even had the control of the rural soviets. The establishment and stabilization of soviet power was not an easy or quick task.
The new power was based on the institutions that were borne from its revolutionary struggle. The institutions of socialist power were the soviets, the councils of the workers representatives, the representatives of military and afterward the farmers’ soviets, hence the name Soviet Union. 
The new state that was constructed was the revolutionary workers’ power, the dictatorship of the proletariat. Based on the social ownership of the concentrated means of production and on the cooperative of peasants from the 1930’s onwards, it expressed the interests of the majority of the exploited that overthrew the power of the minority of the exploiters. The dictatorship of the proletariat proved to be a superior form of democracy, since workers’ power led the working masses into participation, control and administration of the power and of the social life in general, it drew the masses from the sidelines. Through the organization of power in the production unit, the working class was able to develop organization and discipline. Through participation in the control and administration of the production unit, there had been steps in order to change the consciousness, in order to put the social interest above the individual.
Apart from the institutions of the workers’ power, the soviets, a vast number of mass organizations were also developed; trade unions, cultural, educational, women’s, youth, where the majority of the population was organized and participated.
The direct participation of workers took place until 1936 through the nuclei of the workers’ power at the factory, the production unit, the village, but also through the function of a series of mass organizations. During the procedures for the approval of significant state laws, i.e. the constitutional amendments, assemblies of the nuclei of the workers’ power were held, where the workers expressed their opinion and, through voting, their position. 
The direct participation of workers was accompanied by the indirect election in the representative bodies as was established in the first Constitution of the USSR in 1924. The representatives were accountable and the collective unit had the right to recall them and elect others in their position. The indirect electoral representation ensured the will and participation of workers in the institutions of the soviet power. In that way the will of the majority was established. 
The soviets were not only responsible for the decision making but also for their application. During the assemblies, the nuclei of the workers’ power discussed the central and particular plans of the branches, the decisions that they made, they implemented them as working organs, with delegates that were not cut off from production.
In the Constitution of 1936, direct electoral representation was established through geographical electoral wards (and not through the production unit). As it is stated in the Resolution of the 18th Congress of the KKE: “The critical approach to these changes focuses on the need to study further the functional downgrading of the production unit as the nucleus of organisation of workers’ power, due to the abolition of the production unit principle and of the indirect election of delegates through congresses and assemblies. We need to study its negative impact on the class composition of the higher state organs and on the application of the right of recall of delegates (which according to Lenin constitutes a basic element of democracy in the dictatorship of the proletariat).”
After the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956 and under the weight of more general weaknesses, a deviation, a retreat in the Party’s perception was expressed, regarding the class-oriented revolutionary character of the state and the rejection of the scientific law for the continuation of the class struggle during socialist construction. 
Nevertheless, in the USSR the institutions’ functioning expressed an unprecedented participation of the masses in political action. According to statistical data of 1977, the local organs of state-power (i.e. the soviets of representatives) were more than 50,000 all over the country. In these soviets there were more than 2,200,000 elected representatives, namely around 1% of total population of the Soviet Union. It is also estimated that within 41 years, from the Constitution of 1936, more than 25 million people participa- ted in the soviets. In addition, it is estimated that in the organs of people’s control, at the production units, the services and the kolkhozes (production cooperatives) were elected every 2 years at the workers’ assemblies and that about 9.2 million workers participated in these organs. Comparing to this, the bourgeois parliamentary democracy seems like a joke… 
In the soviet constitution, despite any criticism that may be made, the nature of the organs was safeguarded. For example, even in the Constitution of 1977 (a period in which the opportunist turn of the CPSU was already a fact and there are serious problems in its strategic and the socialist construction), article 104 described the non-professional nature for the elected delegates and their exclusion from privileges: “Deputies shall exercise their powers without discontinuing their regular employment or duties”. In addition, article 107 specified the obligation of the deputies to report on their work and the possibility to be recalled; “Deputies shall report on their work and on that of the Soviet to their constituents, and to the work collectives and public organisations that nominated them. Deputies who have not justified the confidence of their constituents may be recalled at any time by decision of a majority of the electors in accordance with the procedure established by law.”
However, in that process there were some weaknesses. The procedure of the socialist construction constantly creates new problems that seek new solutions, and this is when the ability of the workers’ power is judged. First of all, is judged the ability of the CP to lead in accordance with the scientific laws. 
In the Soviet Union, the legacy of the old social system weigh heavy, as the new one Assembly of women in a village of the Soviet Union. 1920. Soviet power had been proved a superior form of democracy. It drew the masses from the sidelines and led them to participation, control and administration. 44 emerged from its bowels For example, from the first years of the social construction problems of detachment from the interests of the working class arose re employees of the state mechanism and especially by those who came from the old, tsarist state mechanism.
The adoption of the thesis concerning the “state of the whole people” (consolidated in the constitutional revision of 1977) cancelled out the nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat as workers’ power, rejected the vanguard role of the working class as the bearer of communist relations.
The sharpening of the problems in soviet power was a consequence of the weakening of the socialist economy through the adoption of the market reforms (q.v. first part of the publication “Truths and Lies About Socialism”), which led to the reinforcement of the individual and group interests vis-a-vis the overall interests of society. As a result, the forces that had an interest in the overthrow of socialism and the restoration of capitalism gained strength.
This development influenced the structures of power and the workers’ control which had attained a formal character. In the decade of the 1980s, through perestroika, which was the final attack by the counter-revolution, the soviet system degenerated into a bourgeois parliamentary organ with a division of the executive and legislative functions, a permanence of office holders, an undermining of the right to recall, high remuneration, etc. I.e. everything negative that was developed was an element of the forms of the bourgeois power. 
Tsipras-Varoufakis: Loyal servants of the capitalist system

Monday, July 24, 2017

Tsipras-Varoufakis: Loyal servants of the capitalist system
By Nikos Mottas*
During the last few days we are witnessing a highly hypocritical “blame game” between Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and his former finance minister Yanis Varoufakis. In his latest book titled “Adults in the room”, Varoufakis tries to present himself as a “fighter” who resisted Europe’s “deep establishment”.
In his “political thriller”, the ex-finance minister describes how the Tsipras government handled the negotiations with its creditors, outlining the role each government official played during that period. As for his former collaborator, Varoufakis writes among other things: Alexis Tsipras appears totally overwhelmed, unable to collide with his own consultants who were pro loan agreement, in some cases he was totally manipulated by the ‘internal’ and ‘external’ Troika”.
From his side, in a recent interview with the “Guardian”, the Greek PM launches an indirect attack against Varoufakis. We quote from the interview: “I have made mistakes … big mistakes,” he says, adding that his biggest error may have been “the choice of people in key posts”. Asked if that is a direct reference to his first finance minister, the maverick economist Yanis Varoufakis, the leftist rejects the notion, saying he was the right choice for an initial strategy of “collision politics”, but dismisses the plan he presented had Greece been forced to make the dramatic move to a new currency as “so vague, it wasn’t worth talking about”.
The “blame game” between Tsipras and Varoufakis– two politicians whose role as servants of the bourgeoisie has been undoubtedly proved- has nothing to do with the actual interests of the Greek people. Both of them share immense responsibility for deceiving the people, both before and after the January 2015 elections.
Regarding the role of Alexis Tsipras and Yanis Varoufakis, let us remind the following:
As an opposition party, SYRIZA had promised to tear up the austerity memorandums, which the previous governments had signed with the foreign lenders (the EU, the ECB and the IMF), and which contained the antiworker-antipeople measures. It was February 2015, just a few weeks after SYRIZA’s electoral victory, when the then Finance Minister Varoufakis revealed that the government agrees with 70% of the “reforms” included in the memoranda and disagrees with 30%, which it describes as “toxic”.
As an opposition party, SYRIZA had established a fierce rhetoric against privatizations. After being elected in the government, according to the statement of the then Finance Minister, Y. Varoufakis, the position had changed: “We want to move on from the rationale of cut price sales to the rationale of their development in partnership with the private sector and foreign investors”! So, the government of Tsipras and Varoufakis had adopted privatizations in order to reinforce the private sector but also tried to present other forms of privatizations, like, for example, public private partnerships and concessions to business groups, etc as being beneficial.
The- highly advertised by Tsipras and Varoufakis- “negotiations” between the Greek government and the creditors had a specific content which wasn’t related to the “end of austerity”, as SYRIZA and other opportunist or social democratic parties were claiming. That specific content was- and still is- an inter-bourgeois game, related to the needs of the monopoly groups which arise from the negative consequences of the deep capitalist crisis.
Regarding the so-called “revelations” of Yanis Varoufakis and the “blame game” between the former finance minister and PM Tsipras, the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) has made the following comments:
If the revival of the discussion about 2015 proves something, that is how the dominant circles of the system and the EU “used” SYRIZA and its fake radicalism in order to continue the antipeople policy that New Democracy and PASOK didn’t finish, as well as to sow frustration within the people.
It also proves that the real pro-people alternative does not exist in the various sectors of the capital that lead the people to bankruptcy, inside or outside the eurozone, for the sake of capitalist profitability, but towards a radically different way of development, in favor of the popular needs” (23/7/2017).
The KKE also states: “The transformation of SYRIZA into a “pure blood” bourgeois social democratic party cannot be explained neither with Mr. Tsipras’ statements of repentance nor with “political thriller” like the ones of Varoufakis. That was the specified ending of a party which undertook the management of the antipeople capitalist way and the service of the capital’s needs, something that the KKE had predicted from the very first moment” (24/7/2017).
Indeed, neither Mr.Tsipras nor Mr.Varoufakis have the right to pose as “defenders” of the people’s rights. Their role is well-known to the working class of Greece. Both SYRIZA and the new political platform of Varoufakis (DiEM25) are loyal servants of the capitalist system: despite any particular differences, their goal is common and that is to foster illusions among the working class about a supposed “pro-people” management of capitalist economy.
The capital- the bourgeois class- has the ability to use a variety of (supposedly) “radical” political representatives who are eager to serve the aim of people’s manipulation. The interests of the working class do not lie in the demagoguery of any Tsipras or Varoufakis, but in the strengthening of the struggle against the bourgeois class and the capitalist shackles, for worker’s power and towards the construction of a new society, the one of socialism-communism. 
* Nikos Mottas is the Editor-in-Chief of ‘In Defense of Communism’.