Category: Communist Party of Mexico (PCM)
Position of the KKE on the developments in the Communist Party of the Peoples of Spain (PCPE)

Friday, May 5, 2017

Position of the KKE on the developments in the Communist Party of the Peoples of Spain (PCPE)

Position of the KKE on the developments in the Communist Party of the Peoples of Spain (PCPE):

The KKE is informed and follows with great care the developments in the Communist Party of the Peoples of Spain (PCPE).We know that today intense pressure is being exerted on the communist movement, on every CP, in the conditions of the negative international correlation of forces, with the aim that they abandon the revolutionary strategy, are co-opted into the capitalist system and become a force that manages the system. This is not something new in Spain, which saw the strong opportunist current of Eurocommunism in the ranks of the CP of Spain. The PCPE, which emerged as force that confronted the current of Eurocommunism, has developed long-term comradely relations with the KKE, which waged a major political fight against the corresponding opportunist current in our country. The social-democratic party SYRIZA emerged from this opportunist current and later gathered together all the rotten elements that social-democratic PASOK provided.
In addition, our party, which began the International Meetings of Communist and Workers Parties in 1999 in Athens, which have been consolidated with the support of other CPs as an important event for the international communist movement, had proposed and had fought for the PCPE to be included in the list of parties that are invited to them, known as the Solidnet list. Later on, when the forces of opportunism in Europe established their own centre, the so-called “Party of the European Left” and the need to form a communist pole intensified, which would defend Marxism-Leninism, the necessity of the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and the construction of the new socialist-communist society, the “International Communist Review” was founded as a first effort to form this pole.
In this new effort the KKE struggled alongside the PCPE, as it did also in the new form of regional cooperation of the CPs of Europe (Communist Initiative) which is based on a Joint Founding Declaration and is in confrontation with the forces of opportunism in Europe.
In addition, the KKE, developing close and comradely relations with the PCPE, has visited Spain on many occasions and has invited cadres of the party in Greece. Delegations of the KKE participated in multi-day visits to workplaces in many cities of Spain, also supporting the electoral battles and other activities of the PCPE by speaking at rallies and meetings. Over the course of this cooperation, we came to know the PCPE better, its cadres and members, the militants that support the PCPE and the “Collectives of Young Communists” which have developed important, internationalist relations with the Communist Youth of Greece (KNE).
In the conditions that have arisen with the inner-party crisis of the PCPE, our party will seek relations with that party which it considers there is a proximity of political positions or approach in terms of goals and priorities that contribute to the development of the struggle and regroupment of the international communist movement. From this standpoint, our party from now on will develop bilateral relations with the PCPE with as its General Secretary Astor Garcia, judging that the positions which this party expresses correspond to the longstanding comradely relations we have developed with the comrades of the PCPE.
At the same time we should note that the course of the group of comrades Carmelo Suarez-Julio Diaz is making a negative impression, as is exemplified by the text recently issued by their “Political Secretariat” with the title: “Some want to use the PCPE as part of his strategy to break the International Communist Movement (ICM)”. There is an attempt in this text and other similar interventions to turn reality on its headSo those parties that seek to form a pole to defend Marxism-Leninism and have devoted their forces for the regroupment and unity of the communist movement, for the reinforcement of proletarian internationalism are accused of splitting the International Communist Movement and not those parties that are CPs in name only, which openly collaborate with the bourgeois class, with capital, which participate in bourgeois governments, which support the imperialist plans of NATO, the EU, which formed the opportunist centre of the PEL in Europe.
In addition, the publication of Trotskyist positions in the newspaper Unidad y Lucha, as well as the contacts and joint events which this group began with the opportunist CP Spain, which supported and supports the anti-people government of SYRIZA in Greece and fights against the KKE, have nothing to do with the PCPE that our party knew and struggled alongside.
We should note that during the preparation of the 7th issue of the International Communist Review (ICR), which is dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, this group submitted an article with certain unusual positions, such as, for example, that the socialist revolution…was bourgeois in content, or with other positions that downgraded the importance of the Marxist-Leninist worldview, supporting amongst other things the mistaken strategy of stages to socialism etc. These positions were at the focus of the criticism carried out by the KKE, as well as other parties during meeting of the Editorial Board, as well as afterwards. The intention of the KKE and other CPs, like the CP of Mexico, to take a public position in the “Space for Discussion” of the ICR against these positions led to the group of Carmelo Suarez-Julio Diaz withdrawing their article so that there would be no criticism, concealing in this way the unacceptable positions argued for in their article from the members and cadres of the PCPE.
After all this and other things that have happened in Spain  which we are aware of, as regards the role of this group, after the provocative attack against the CP of Mexico, which has stood at the side of the PCPE in very difficult conditions, after the slanders against the KKE by cadres of this group and the hostility aimed by it at our party and the international joint initiatives we have taken and in which the two parties participate, we want to stress that on our part we will continue to have relations with the PCPE that we knew, struggled together with against opportunism and for the formation of a contemporary revolutionary strategy in the international communist movement and this, in our estimation, is expressed by the PCPE under the leadership of Astor Garcia and the other comrades who have taken on the reins of the PCPE in these difficult conditions.
International Relations Section of the CC of the KKE.

El KKE se ha informado y sigue con gran atención los acontecimientos en el Partido Comunista de los Pueblos de España (PCPE). Entendemos que hoy en el movimiento comunista, en cada partido comunista se están ejerciendo presiones muy fuertes, en condiciones de correlación de fuerzas negativa a nivel internacional, con el objetivo de que abandonen la estrategia revolucionaria, que se asimilen en el sistema capitalista, que se conviertan en una fuerza que gestiona el sistema. Esto no es algo nuevo en España, que ha conocido la fuerte corriente oportunista del eurocomunismo en las filas del Partido Comunista de España. El PCPE, surgió como una fuerza que se enfrentó a la corriente del eurocomunismo, ha ido desarrollando largas relaciones camaraderiles con el KKE, que libró una gran lucha política con la corriente oportunista respectiva en nuestro país, de la que ha derivado el partido socialdemócrata de SYRIZA que más tarde ha reunido todos los elementos podridos que proporcionaba el PASOK socialdemócrata.

Además, nuestro partido, que ha comenzado los Encuentros Internacionales de Partidos Comunistas y Obreros en 1999 en Atenas, que se han consolidado con el apoyo de varios partidos comunistas como un evento importante para el movimiento comunista internacional, había propuesto y luchado para la integración del PCPE en la lista de partidos invitados en estos, la conocida lista de SolidNet. Más tarde, cuando las fuerzas del oportunismo en Europa establecieron su propio centro, el llamado “Partido de la Izquierda Europea” y se fortaleció la necesidad de formar un polo comunista en defensa del marxismo-leninismo, la necesidad del derrocamiento revolucionario del capitalismo y la construcción de la nueva sociedad socialista-comunista, se fundó la revista internacional “Revista Comunista Internacional” como un nuevo esfuerzo para la formación de este polo.

En este nuevo esfuerzo, el KKE luchó junto con el PCPE, tal como para la nueva forma de cooperación regional de partidos comunistas de Europa (Iniciativa Comunista) que se basa en una Declaración Fundacional Común y está en confrontación con las fuerzas del oportunismo en Europa.

Además, el KKE ha ido construyendo estrechas relaciones camaraderiles con el PCPE, ha visitado muchas veces España y ha invitado a cuadros de este partido en Grecia. Delegaciones del KKE han participado en visitas de varios días en centros de trabajo en muchas ciudades de España, apoyando además el PCPE con discursos en concentraciones y reuniones para las batallas electorales y otras actividades. En este transcurso hemos llegado a conocer mejor el PCPE, sus cuadros y miembros, los luchadores que apoyan el PCPE y los Colectivos de Jóvenes Comunistas que han desarrollado importantes relaciones internacionalistas con la Juventud Comunista de Grecia (KNE).

En las condiciones que han surgido con la crisis interna en el PCPE, nuestro partido pretenderá mantener relaciones con el partido que considera que existe una proximidad de posiciones políticas o un acercamiento en términos de objetivos y prioridades, que contribuyen al desarrollo de la lucha y del reagrupamiento del movimiento comunista internacional. En este sentido, nuestro partido a partir de ahora desarrollará relaciones bilaterales con el PCPE con el camarada Ástor García como Secretario General, teniendo en cuenta que las posiciones que expresa este Partido corresponden a las largas relaciones camaraderiles que hemos desarrollado con los camaradas del PCPE.

Al mismo tiempo, cabe señalar la impresión negativa que está haciendo el camino que sigue el grupo de los camaradas Carmelo Suárez y Julio Díaz tal como se comprueba en el texto publicado recientemente por su “Secretariado Político” bajo el título: “Algunos quieren utilizar el PCPE como parte de su estrategia para romper al Movimiento Comunista Internacional (MCI)”. A través de este texto y otras intervenciones similares, se hace un esfuerzo de revertir la realidad. Así que se acusan de división del Movimiento Comunista Internacional los partidos que pretenden formar un polo en defensa del marxismo-leninismo y cuyas fuerzas están comprometidas con el reagrupamiento y la unidad del movimiento comunista, con el fortalecimiento del internacionalismo proletario, y no aquellos partidos que son partidos comunistas sólo de nombre, que colaboran abiertamente con la burguesía, con el capital, que participan en gobiernos burgueses, que apoyan los planes imperialistas de la OTAN y de la UE, que han formado el centro imperialista del PIE en Europa.

Además, la publicación de posiciones trotskistas en el periódico Unidad y Lucha, así como los contactos y eventos conjuntos que ha comenzado este grupo con el PCE oportunista que ha apoyado y sigue apoyando el gobierno antipopular de SYRIZA en Grecia y ha luchado contra el KKE, no tienen nada que ver con el PCPE que nuestro partido ha conocido y con lo que han luchado juntos.

Cabe señalar que durante la preparación del 7º número de la Revista Comunista Internacional (RCI), dedicado al 100 aniversario de la Gran Revolución de Octubre, este grupo presentó un artículo con ciertas posiciones extrañas como p.ej. que la revolución socialista era… burguesa en su contenido, u otras posiciones que reducen la importancia de la cosmovisión marxista-leninista, apoyando entre otros la estrategia equivocada de etapas hacia el socialismo, etc. Durante la reunión del Consejo Editorial y luego, el KKE así como otros partidos centraron su crítica a estas posiciones. La intención del KKE y de otros partidos comunistas, como el PC de México, de expresarse públicamente en el “Espacio para el Diálogo” de la RCI contra estas posiciones, hizo que el grupo de Carmelo Suárez y Julio Díaz retirase su artículo para que no hubiese ninguna crítica, ocultando de los miembros y los cuadros del PCPE las posiciones inaceptables expresadas en su artículo.
Después de todo esto y otras cosas que han sucedido en España y de las que estamos informados, respecto el papel de este grupo, después del ataque provocador contra el PC de México que ha estado al lado del PCPE en condiciones muy difíciles, después de las calumnias de cuadros del grupo contra el KKE y la hostilidad con la que se dirigen contra nuestro partido y las iniciativas internacionales conjuntas que hemos tomado y en las que participan ambos partidos, quisiéramos destacar que de nuestra parte seguiremos teniendo relaciones con el PCPE que hemos conocido y con que hemos luchado juntos contra el oportunismo y para la elaboración de una estrategia revolucionaria contemporánea en el movimiento comunista internacional y esto, en nuestra opinión, se expresa por el PCPE, bajo la dirección de Ástor García y los demás camaradas que han tomado las riendas del PCPE en estas condiciones difíciles.

La Sección de RR.II. del CC del KKE,

Respuesta del KKE a las calumnias.
El 4 de mayo, el grupo de Carmelo Suárez-Julio Díaz, dio a la publicidad el artículo de Alexis Dorta “Lecciones de Octubre: el PCPE en el centenario de la revolución de Octubre” que iba a ser publicado en el 7º número de la Revista Comunista Internacional (RCI) y al final fue retirado por ellos mismos, para que sus miembros y cuadros no llegaran a conocer las posiciones que planteaban en este artículo, ni la posición crítica del KKE y del PC de México.
De hecho, en la introducción contiene calumnias a expensas del KKE y del PC de México, mientras que hacen una falsificación, diciendo que supuestamente cuando hablaban del contenido burgués de la revolución socialista, hablaban de la Revolución de Febrero. Algo que claramente no surge del texto de su artículo.
Respecto este artículo quisiéramos destacar lo siguiente:
Todos los partidos, que participamos voluntariamente en la RCI, nos hemos comprometido con la Declaración de Fundación de Estambul de que consideramos el proceso de la “Revista Comunista Internacional” como un primer paso en la dirección de formar un polo de Partidos Comunistas que defienden el marxismo-leninismo y trabajan conjuntamente para la elaboración de una estrategia revolucionaria común del movimiento comunista internacional.
En las reuniones de la RCI se pretende debatir cada vez los temas sobre los que existen divergencias, diferentes enfoques, para que la revista tenga una expresión política única, en primer lugar en el artículo editorial, así como en los demás artículos.
Debido a que este esfuerzo requiere tiempo y discusión, no se puede hacer de un momento a otro, hemos establecido desde hace unos años el “Espacio para el Diálogo” donde cada partido tiene la oportunidad de plantear de manera camaraderil su propio enfoque sobre cuestiones en uno u otro artículo, si estos enfoques no se pueden tomar en cuenta por el escritor y no se pueden superar a través de la discusión en la reunión de la RCI y tras el proceso de las observaciones escritas.
En base a lo anterior, nuestro Partido para contribuir de la mejor manera posible en la discusión y para que se superen los problemas surgidos de este artículo, hizo los siguientes esfuerzos:
1) Planteó (oralmente) en la reunión de diciembre de 2016 sus observaciones sobre el artículo, respecto algunos puntos muy graves, y fue asegurado por el camarada Alexis Dorta, que tomó parte en la reunión del Consejo Editorial, que iban a ser examinadas cuidadosamente.
2) Presentó por escrito sus observaciones, dentro del plazo que se había establecido, el 19/12/2016.
3) Examinó el artículo revisado, enviado el 4/2/2017 y concluyó que se mantenían cuestiones graves sobre las cuales nuestro Partido tiene un enfoque diferente y decidimos, puesto que tenemos este derecho, escribir al “Espacio para el Diálogo”.
4) Respondemos positivamente a la nueva solicitud enviada el 1/3/2017 y el “Secretariado Técnico de la RCI” (del que nuestro partido es responsable) congeló la edición inglesa, tal como se nos pidió, para que se enviara una nueva versión de su artículo “100 años de la Revolución Socialista de Octubre. Lecciones actuales.” aunque tal cosa no está prevista en el proceso que seguimos. Sin embargo, consideramos importante agotar todos los plazos y toda posibilidad, a fin de se superar los diferentes enfoques que se han presentado en algunos puntos básicos de este artículo concreto.
5) En nuestra carta de 9/3/2017 señalamos que el proceso del “Espacio para el Diálogo” es un proceso que se ha establecido, se ha aplicado también en artículos del KKE, donde otros partidos expresaron diferentes enfoques a los de nuestro partido y, desde este punto de vista, no tenía base, la petición de que no se publicaran los comentarios enviados al “Espacio para el Diálogo” por los camaradas del PC de México.
6) Recibimos la segunda versión final del artículo, el 13/3/2017, sin embargo, nos dimos cuenta de que en los asuntos sobre los que centramos nuestro enfoque diferente, no hubo cambios esenciales. Por lo tanto, consideramos necesario participar en el “Espacio para el Diálogo” y comunicamos esta nuestra intención.
Por lo que se desprende de lo anterior, el KKE ha cumplido con todo lo contemplado en el marco del funcionamiento de la RCI, mientras que el grupo de Carmelo Suárez-Julio Díaz, demoraba deliberadamente durante un trimestre poniendo obstáculos en la publicación de la RCI. Sin embargo, tras la publicación de su artículo ayer, consideramos necesario en primer lugar para informar a todos los camaradas que siguen estos acontecimientos, publicar las observaciones del KKE que estaban destinadas para el “Espacio para el Diálogo” y tenían que ver con este artículo de A.Dorta.
Sección de RR.II. del CC del KKE

* * * 

Observaciones de los representantes de “Kommunistiki Epitheorisi” (del KKE) sobre el artículo “Cien años de la Revolución Socialista de Octubre. Lecciones actuales” de Alexis Dorta

Teniendo en cuenta, en primer lugar, los problemas relacionados con dificultades de traducción, quisiéramos referirnos creativamente a ciertas posiciones-expresiones que están incluidas en el artículo y que quizás se podrían mal interpretar:
“El marxismo-leninismo no debe tratarse como un recetario general de aplicación mecánica a cualquier realidad, … como método, de análisis de la praxis histórica y como cosmovisión integral de carácter científico, como ideología del proletariado.”
Por supuesto, el marxismo-leninismo no es un dogma y, ciertamente, hay que resguardarnos de una repetición mecánica y abstracta de posiciones.
El marxismo-leninismo es la teoría científica integral para el paso revolucionario del capitalismo al comunismo y, por consiguiente, una guía para la acción. Durante el siglo XX, así como en nuestros días, se ha intentado revisarla en el nombre de las particularidades, las especificidades nacionales, incluso de aplicarla de manera mecánica. Con esta excusa se abandonó la estrategia revolucionaria, se justificó la participación en gobiernos burgueses y la cooperación con fuerzas burguesas. Hay que prestar atención a la posición de que el marxismo-leninismo no es “un recetario general de aplicación mecánica” para no sea utilizada con el fin de refutarla, en combinación con que esto realmente ocurrió en el pasado también, cuando algunas personas defendían que la Revolución de Octubre no tiene un significado mundial, sino que su significado se limita en el marco de la realidad rusa. Sin embargo, en realidad, todos los comunistas reconocemos su importancia mundial, el hecho de que señaló la transición de la humanidad del capitalismo a la nueva sociedad, al socialismo-comunismo. Hoy día, en condiciones en que los monopolios, el capitalismo monopolista, predominan en todos los países capitalistas, no consideramos que pueda existir alguna “realidad” en la que nuestra cosmovisión no se pueda aplicar. Además, por otra parte existe la experiencia de la construcción del socialismo en la URSS. Su derrocamiento tuvo lugar, según las evaluaciones de nuestro Partido, no principalmente porque nuestra cosmovisión había sido aplicada de manera dogmática o “mecánica” (sin excluir la existencia de este tipo de errores también), sino a causa de las violaciones de las leyes científicas de la Revolución y de la Construcción Socialista y de la corrosión de los partidos comunistas por el oportunismo.
En relación con la frase de que “Lenin tuvo en cuenta, que en función del análisis de las condiciones, estableció la estrategia modular del proceso revolucionario en Rusia”, la verdad es que Lenin tuvo que tratar también la cuestión del derrocamiento del Estado del imperio zarista, con elementos semi-feudales que no existen hoy en las sociedades capitalistas. Además, se hicieron cambios en la elaboración estratégica de los bolcheviques desde 1905 hasta la victoria de la Revolución de Octubre y en general no hay que considerar responsable por la estrategia equivocada de las etapas a los principios generales del leninismo.
Además, evaluamos que hay que tener cuidado con la formulación que dice que los bolcheviques tenían una posición para “favorecer los elementos de avance capitalistas”. Es cierto que el capitalismo, en relación con el anterior sistema feudal, constituyó un paso hacia delante en el desarrollo social, pero el nivel de desarrollo del capitalismo (p.ej. del capitalismo pre-monopolista al capitalismo monopolista-imperialista) y el análisis leninista de la trayectoria del sistema, no se puede interpretar como un esfuerzo de los bolcheviques de seguir desarrollando el capitalismo.
En el texto, según nuestra evaluación, es equivocada la caracterización de la revolución de Octubre como “burguesa” en su contenido. Consideramos que esta caracterización no tiene base científica. En contraste con el carácter democrático-burgués de la revolución de 1905 y los problemas resueltos en febrero de 1917, la fuerza dirigente de la Revolución de Octubre fue la clase obrera y su carácter era socialista. La clase obrera conquistó el poder y es de gran importancia la posición de Lenin en su discurso sobre el 4º aniversario de la Revolución de Octubre (Obras Completas t.44) donde señala que: “Resolvimos los problemas de la revolución democrático-burguesa al pasar, como un “sub-producto” de nuestras actividades fundamentales y genuinamente proletarias, revolucionarias, socialistas”.
En fin, la evaluación que se incluye en este artículo de que “Precisamente por no haber dado lugar a esa táctica de crear una presión reformista, la guerra creó una situación revolucionaria, como un enfrentamiento abierto, nítido y virulento entre clases.” es problemática y eso es porque dicha formulación no subraya el carácter objetivo de la manifestación de la situación revolucionaria.
Venezuela’s Communist Party (PCV) denounces efforts to exclude it from elections

Thursday, February 16, 2017

Venezuela’s Communist Party (PCV) denounces efforts to exclude it from elections
The Communist Party of Venezuela (PCV) is going to challenge new electoral authority rules in court this week which threaten to exclude it from elections. During the weekend the party denounced the new National Electoral Council (CNE) rules which require parties to submit full membership lists for publication on the authority’s website — or be deregistered and barred from elections.
According to the Communist Party of Venezuela the recent decision is based on a 1965 law, when the then bourgeois governments (including Romulo Betancourt’s one) had unleashed numerous persecutions against members of the Communist Party which was outlawed. The General Secretary of PCV Oscar Figuera stated that the Party will seek an injuction from the Supreme Justice Tribunal against the rule of the National Electoral Council.
The Communist Party of Venezuela holds two seats in the opposition-controlled, 167-member National Assembly, and forms part of the Great Patriotic Pole bloc led by President Nicolas Maduro’s United Socialist Party.
The General Secretary of the Communist Party of Mexico (PCM) Pavel Blanco expressed his “total solidarity with the glorious Communist Party of Venezuela”. As Secretary Blanco stated, “under no argument is it permissible for a communist party to be outlawed and deprived of its electoral rights. It would leave much to desire from the Maduro government if it acted against the PCV”.
Communist Party of Mexico- The class character of interstate unions in America

Sunday, January 15, 2017

Communist Party of Mexico- The class character of interstate unions in America

Class character of interstate unions in America.
By Pável Blanco Cabrera & Angel Chávez Mancilla*.
Source: International Communist Review, Issue 6, 2015.
A class approach that puts aside populist criteria is necessary, and this is done on a scientific basis, using the Marxist method of analysing reality, considering the degree of development of capitalism, the process of concentration and centralization in the imperialist phase, emphasizing what is general, without neglecting the peculiarities, and avoiding to place the part above the all. Marxist doctrine establishes the mutual connection between the phenomena of nature and society rather than analyse them in isolation. As V.S. Molodtsov noted “to deny the interdependence of phenomena goes against the possibility of knowledge as a single whole, as opposed to metaphysics Marxism-Leninism developed a truly scientific method of knowledge and transformation of reality. This method requires, first of all, considering all the phenomena of nature and society in mutual connection and interdependence“[1].
These features of Marxist-Leninist analysis are not always followed and dogmatic approaches remain, for example, with regard to the study of imperialism. For example, the relationships of economic dependences are considered fixed, immovable. In addition it neglects an essential quality of imperialism, that Lenin clarified, that it is monopoly capitalism, beating away free competition[2]; five traits are expressed in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, and they only cling to one, dodging other traits of critical importance. This leads to distortions in the analysis of contemporary interstate unions and the anti-imperialist struggle itself, strictly limiting it to the conception of weak countries versus foreign powers, or economic subordination relations, without considering that capital is developing and there are constant changes, and interdependence phenomena.
Since the beginning of the North American Free Trade Agreement (Canada, USA , Mexico) in 1994, interstate unions are being promoted in America, bilateral, multilateral and even those of continental character, with economic, trade, customs, immigration, regional integration, police and military collaboration.
Latin America is not an exclusive “backyard ” of US monopolies, though its economic and political interests are still dominant, there is an increasingly growing presence of capitals from the European Union, China, and even the coordinated presence of monopolies of South America, and monopolies of each the countries involved, which are benefitted and who will occupy key places in the economic areas in which they participate.
Approaches on the class character of these interstate unions are plagued by confusion, because perceptions are mechanically supported by previous elaborations, dogmatically, as corresponding to a different time of development of capitalism rather that in its imperialist stage, and even to historical analogies such as colonial domination. This leads to ambiguity in strategic development by several communist and workers’ parties, and to the marsh in the class struggle, tasks and allies are mistaken, and promoting class collaboration, ideological misrepresentation, postponing the historic goal that was already mapped out in 1848 in the program for the communists which Marx and Engels wrote.
A first issue, is the way the Leninist theory of imperialism is assumed. Reductively it is focused as a relation of domination, and not the highest and final stage of capitalism, as monopoly capitalism. Imperialism is thus identified with “Yankee imperialism”, as a new colonial power, and maintains that the first task of the Communists is to fight for national independence, a task in which a spectrum of cross-class alliances is designed and the bourgeoisie is divided between “national” and “pro-imperialist”; by anti-imperialist sectors they mean anti-American, not necessarily antimonopoly because that would be involving many “national” monopolies, with which opposition platforms are forged against “foreign” monopolies. It is clear to the Communists, that regardless of nationality, whether they hold a higher or lower place, any monopoly is an essential component of the international imperialist system.
The main conclusion of this misperception is that Latin American countries are dependent, neo-colonies of American imperialism, and this conclusion is signed by a significant number of communist and labour parties of the region, and shared by reformist, opportunistic, and even political expressions of the bourgeoisie, not only at national scale but regional and seeking a continental character, plus it is no coincidence that these formations[3] have correspondence with projects or mechanisms of some interstate unions, claiming its alternative nature to the American imperialist centre.
It is assumed that the dominant role of the US is static, without considering the inter-imperialist contradictions and intense battle between sharks to occupy the top of the pyramid. True, today in America the monopolies from US are dominant, but they are not as much as 50, 25 or even 10 years ago, because every time they are losing ground to competitors on the rise of other nationalities. Leninist law of uneven development is checked.
When influencing the strategy and tactics, the opportunist character that contains class struggle manifests itself for it sections capital, considering that the national capital must be protected from abroad and leads to loss of class independence of the workers, placing them at the tail of the bourgeoisie.
Let us take the case of NAFTA, against which the Communists have been fighting since 1994, and even before, when it was a project proposed by the government of George Bush. Overall popular class forces, including us[4], subscribed that Mexico being a dependent country the free trade area meant that Mexico went from being a semi colony into a process of direct annexation by the United States. The struggle perspective stood with the flag of national independence and sovereignty and conceived a broad front with part of the bourgeoisie of the country. If you see the resolutions, declarations issued by PCM then you will find that we had more concern for the future of the industrial manufacturing, textiles, agriculture, small industry, bourgeois facing foreseeable ruin, and you will notice very little reference to the situation of Mexican, Canadian, American and migrant working class. More than two decades later the assessment that history provides allows us to confirm that this approach was wrong, because not only the American monopolies made huge profits, but also Canadian and Mexican monopolies, which strengthened and absorbed the weaker ones in the USA, in the field of telephony, America Movil, and in the mining branch, Industrial Minera Mexico, both dominant Mexican monopolies that plunder, export capital to and exploit workers of the in the US and in Latin America, and have a multifaceted character as they have expanded their investments from telephony to the press, and in general communication services, food, pharmaceuticals, etc. In the case of Industrial Minera Mexico it absorbed several monopolies in the mining and metal-mechanical branch in the US, Peru and Chile. Other instructive examples are the monopoly of the Mexican Bimbo, the food industry, which already dominates the sector in Spain and ventures into China; Construction monopoly ICA, in competition with Brazilian Odebrecht dispute monopoly control of the sector in building roads, bridges and infrastructure; a sobering example is the state monopoly Pemex also locks in that direction, it expanded its line of control in ports and shipyards in Spain. They are not exceptions, you could list other, and check that regardless of nationality monopolies increased their profits, advanced concentrating and centralizing in their field and expanding to others, likewise workers, regardless of nationality, are exploited, impoverished, and are affected by the measures taken by the interstate unions – in this case the NAFTA, to affect their labour rights, reducing them to ashes, devaluing the work and sharpening the capital / labour contradiction, in addition to other measures such as privatization and cutting public sectors of education, health, etc. But not only in the case of NAFTA, Plan Puebla-Panama, bilateral treaties, tried and failed in the FTAA, but also in agreements with the EU, and even in the “alternative” called as MERCOSUR, UNASUR and ALBA, where monopolies of these countries have consolidated as dominant in important branches of agriculture, construction, energy, and also concatenated with blocks, which in the inter dispute with the US, as the case of the BRICS, consider them strategic partners climbing the imperialist pyramid.
Is it correct to speak of Mexico as a dependent and semicolonial country when it ranks 11th in the gross world product? When monopolies are consolidated after a long process of concentration and centralization? According to our findings, set out in the program adopted by the V Congress of the PCM, Mexico is a country of average development in which capitalist relations are fully consolidated, intermediate in the imperialist pyramid, with interdependent relationships that ensure the development of monopolies.
As the Communist Party of Greece states: “History has shown that monopoly as a result of the concentration of capital, as a fundamental law of the present stage of capitalism is a general trend worldwide and can coexist with forms of pre-capitalist economy and property.[5]” That is, in Mexico there are characteristics of economic backwardness, though it is not dominant, as is usually intense and growing capitalist development; there are relationships of dependence and interdependence, stronger with the US economy, and growing with the European Union. We reiterate, there are very strong, dominant Mexican monopolies.
We are convinced of the fight against interstate unions, because these are unfavourable to the people and the working class, and that it has to start from a rigorous class analysis, otherwise, if wrong analyses and perceptions prevail, a wrong strategy will lead to the delay of antimonopoly, anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist objectives.
Among the ideological components of non-class analysis we find the following:
a) Placing the fundamental contradiction as dependence / independence and erroneously displacing the essence of the era which is capital / labour antagonism.
b) Overideologizing the independence and anti-colonialist struggle of the nineteenth century, looking to extract out poetry of the past, and not from the future[6]. The action and the program of Hidalgo, Bolivar, Juarez, San Martin, Sucre, etc., corresponding to a particular time, two centuries ago, when the rising bourgeoisie found in favour of their class interests the need to form their States freeing them from the colonial domination of the Spanish crown, moving immediately to establish domination of the bourgeois class over the exploited and oppressed. Recognizing the revolutionary-democratic struggles and characterizing these as progressive in its time, is downright insufficient wanting to find in the programs of old the flags that workers must now take up to achieve their emancipation. Concepts such as “Monroeism vs bolivarianism” for example, contribute to conceal that at the time the antagonist is socialism vs. capitalism, and the same applies to projects of “Gran Colombia”, etc, etc, today raised by political forces that do not fight against monopolies, but on behalf of those of their respective nationalities.
c) By placing independence as the immediate objective and broad cross-class alliances as the political subject to obtain it, intermediate stages are set, and although those who advocate them may adhere to the socialist-communist goal, they only do so formally for siding with any specific section of the bourgeoisie contributes to the prolongation of capitalist society.
d) Categories such as neoliberalism, globalization, multipolarity, which provide space to the improvement and “humanization” of capitalism, managing it differently, hiding the class conflict in international relations and leading the working class and peoples to take sides in the inter dispute by a block opposite to the US, a more “friendly” one.
e) When considering imperialism as a metropolis, the class struggle in each country is left aside, for the sake of “national unity”, to focus on the struggle against foreign domination.
Another important issue is the following. There is a consensus among the opportunist forces that interstate agreements promoted by the US imperialist centre must be fought in favour of national sections of the bourgeoisie. However when these intergovernmental agreements are with other imperialist centres the position changes, they are presented as the passage of a unipolar to a multipolar world, wording which hides the need to fight for a new world, where other social relationships exist, where workers’ power imposes new conditions favourable to the peoples in open dispute against imperialism. The same is true when the State Union is e.g. MERCOSUR, UNASUR and ALBA-TCP. The equation is simple, the sum of capitalist economies results in an inter-block and cannot result in a popular alliance opposed to monopolies. Where is the alternative there? Let us go to the case of ALBA-TCP that arouses expectations; the presence of Cuba, qualitatively, the economic weight, due to the difficulties it had as a result of the imperialist blockade, has no decisive economic weight relative to the other participating countries that are qualitatively capitalist countries. The ALBA-TCP also recommends capital investment in Latin America itself; true, the Bolivarian political processes of Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia, arouses expectation on the course they can take; but until today, in the Venezuelan case, after 16 years, the bottom line is that the capitalist structure remains intact and monopolies still dominate. Just as wrong is “socialism of the XXI century” (market socialism, bourgeois state, multi-class party, defence of private property and profits of monopolies), as thinking that these processes have a nature distinct of the capitalist one.
ALBA actually functions as a supranational structure just as the EU, and has established an economic base in capitalist relations of production that leads them to undertake joint economic projects as the development of monopoly enterprises with state investment from member countries of ALBA, and private investment to a lesser extent, as are the so called grand-national projects and grand-national companies that have raised venture in mining and metallurgy of aluminum, iron and steel. The boost they propose to give the cement industry with the construction of a cement plant with portland type production capacity of 1,000,000 tons / year, in the departments of Oruro and Potosi with the participation of Cuba and Venezuela is also significant, as it makes clear that the expropriation of CEMEX[7] in Venezuela responds to capitalist economic interests such as the creation of a cement monopoly.[8]
Although the ALBA declares that “The concept of grand-national companies emerged in opposition to transnational companies, therefore, its economic dynamics will be directed to favour the production of goods and services to satisfy human needs” and believes that opposes the logic of capital accumulation, the reality is that economic cooperation does not change the basis of the economic system, so the Grannacional projects are actually a way to develop the industrialization of the countries participating in the ALBA which will lead to the development and strengthening of monopolies, consolidating the ALBA as an imperialist bloc.[9]
Let us recall that Lenin in Imperialism, Highest Stage of Capitalism, warned that “the monopolies have never pursued as an end, nor have resulted, in providing benefits to consumers or, at least, make available to the state a part of employer benefits, rather they have served for the State to bailout private industry, which has come almost to bankruptcy”, in this case the states of the ALBA alliance are seeking to encourage monopolies.
Another example that interstate alliances are of inter-imperialist nature is that for example the special ALBA 2014 Communiqué on states affected by transnational interests does not pronounce against the power of monopolies in general but against those most closely linked to US capital, promoting indirectly with the Southern Observatory on Investment and Transnationals that monopolies that exploit workers in the region respond to the interests of the ALBA, i.e. the exploitation of the working class of the ALBA countries enrich the grand-national companies.[10]
The economic alliance takes ALBA to close military links to defend their economic interests, as NATO is the armed wing of the member countries of the EU, which is why it counts with a defence and sovereignty committee composed of the defence ministers of the member countries seeking “popular joint comprehensive defence strategy and to establish a school of dignity and sovereignty of the armed forces” behind the popular sovereignty and integral defence is the defence of monopoly interests.
Appreciated in their economic characteristics, interstate agreements in the Americas, without exception, have a capitalist class nature and cannot be presented as alternatives to the working class and peoples.
In the fight against them, i.e. in the struggle against the international imperialist system Communists must always specify the antimonopoly and anti-capitalist content and take into account that the struggle is national in form and international for its content. That is, to put a current example, part of the anti-imperialist struggle for the Mexican proletariat is fighting the monopoly Industrial Minera Mexico that now exploits the Peruvian and American proletariat through the Southern Cooper Company. Of very little use it is to break with NAFTA if it is to benefit the monopolies of national origin. Fighting interstate agreements, in our conception and strategic analysis, is linked to the struggle for socialism and workers’ and people’s power, i.e. with a clear anti-monopoly and anti-capitalist vision.
The overthrow of capitalism, of monopoly power is the basic condition to break the plundering of peoples and the exploitation of the proletariat, to forge relations of equality among peoples and ensuring development with socialism-communism will bring welfare of the working class and popular sectors.
[1] V.S. Molodotsov; Marxist dialectics and the mutual connection and interdependence of nature and society phenomena, in Dialectic Materialism; Science Academy of the USSR, under the editing of  V. P. Tchertkov, V. S. Molodtsov, D.M. Trochin, K.V. Moroz, F.I. Kalochin, etc; Moscow 1954.
[2] Let us remember that the features that Lenin assigns to imperialism are the follwing: “(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopoly capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.”
Lenin, Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism, LCW Volume 22
[3] For example the Conference of Organizations and Political Parties of Latin America (COPPAL), the forum of Sao Paulo, which has strong ties with the Left European Party, and that to a great extent are functional for the collaboration of Latin American capitals with European, fundamentally between the MERCOSUR-EU agreements. Organizations that in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s of the XX century, led armed struggles in Central America and that have evolved towards social-democracy, and not as a degeneration, rather a logical result of its class origin and its program, are also inscribed in this analysis. It is in general the position denominated as left, concept that the PCM does not use for it does not express with clarity the class position and it does cloud ideologically, for it misleads, as for left today is also understood liberal formations, socialdemocrats and even capitalist options of neokeynesian management.
[4] The Communist Party of Mexico kept from 1994 and until the year 1999 a platform of struggle against NAFTA baseed on the misleading position that it was an anticolonial struggle for independence to break chains of imperialist domination, from 1999 the focus of struggle acquired a class character, and the rupture with monopolies that exploited the working class not only of Mexico, but also of USA and Canada. It was however until the IV Congress in the year 2010, when the position of rupture with NAFTA and any inter-state agreement was linked with the struggle for socialism-communism and for workers and people’s power.
[5] The Leninist approach of KKE on imperialism and the imperialist pyramid. Written Contribution of KKE to the 9th International Conference “Lenin and the contemporary world”
[6] As Marx well emphasized in the 18th Brumaire of Louise Bonaparte
[7] Mexican monopoly expropriated by the bolivarian government of Venezuela, ¿Do we the working class communist have to choose between the monopoly of the mexican bourgeoisie, or the monopoly of southamerican monopoly? For none, for our duty is to propose the socialization of the means of production and change.
[10] Approved communiqué of the XIV Political Council of ALBA, New York, September 26, 2014.
* Pável Blanco Cabrera is the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Mexico and Angel Chávez Mancilla is Responsible for the Ideology Commission of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Mexico, Director of El Machete.