Category: Party Voices
Socialists should aspire beyond Labour’s post-war consensus


Aug 24th 2016
posted by Morning Star in Features

Attlee’s government provided many benefits for Britain’s working class, but they were by no means true socialists writes MATT WIDOWSON

EVERY time I go on social media I see Clement Attlee. The old Labour prime minister seems to be a common choice of avatar for socialist Twitter users.

You could do a lot worse I suppose — I don’t seem many Twitter accounts represented by the smiling faces of Harold Wilson or Gordon Brown. It must be because the Attlee government of 1945 is such an inspiration to many of today’s activists. But does Labour’s first post-war government deserve this new-found adoration?

Ken Loach’s film The Spirit Of ’45 was certainly well timed. This evocative documentary, released in 2013, perfectly reflected the aspirations of 21st-century austerity Britain and was a welcome contribution towards the current debate about what kind of country we want to live in.

Yet we cannot understand the present without understanding the past. We cannot understand how precious an institution our NHS is without listening to the words of those who lived without it and those that helped create it.

The Attlee government of 1945 had limitations. While this Labour government was perhaps the most radically left-wing British government in our history, it was only radical within the political parameters of the time — parameters defined by capitalism.

It also has the appearance of radicalism in light of what has come since 1979.

Let’s not get too misty-eyed about the past.

We need to examine the achievements of the 1945 government in context.

Britain had just fought a war against fascism in Europe — Loach is quite right in suggesting that the mood of the nation was one of building a society fit for heroes.

In order to achieve the continued “buy-in” of the British people, concessions were needed to be offered to the powerful and demanding working class.

There was also the fact that the Soviet Union had been a decisive player in the war and, although suffering huge casualties, had demonstrated that a socialist country could demonstrate great strength, both militarily and in the power of its ideas.

If British working class did not receive the concessions that they deserved, then perhaps they may begin to look for real alternatives — remember that the Communist Party of Great Britain received its highest ever vote in the 1945 general election and had a membership of around 60,000.

The Labour Party therefore offered the electorate a progressive programme.

Many great gains were made by the working class, particularly in the areas of health, social welfare, housing and public ownership.

These gains should be rightly celebrated and defended, but let’s not confuse these concessions with the final victory of socialism.

The post-war economic consensus founded by the Labour Party was, in reality, the new consensus of capitalism. Its aim was to attempt to manage the economy in the long-term interests of capital, even if that meant tolerating a mixed economy and high levels of taxation and welfare spending.

The new Keynesian order was always due to fail as it was just another phase of capitalism — finally giving way to the neoliberal phase in the late 1970s. We must fairly and realistically assess the Labour Party. Throughout the party’s history it has mostly been dominated by a pro-capital social democratic element — a leadership reconciled with the Establishment and strongly opposed to anything other than reformism.

That said, there has always been a strong socialist strand within the Labour Party. Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership is arguably a reversal of the usual balance of power within the Labour Party. We must therefore place the Attlee government within this context — the government that gave us the NHS also led us into Nato militarism; the government that gave us social housing was also a keen supporter of Western imperialism; the government of public ownership was also vehemently anti-communist.
This may have been the government of Nye Bevan but it was also the government of Ernest Bevin.

The post-war period should not be seen as a golden age. While this historical period is informative, it is certainly not something to aspire to.

For starters, Britain’s economic and social conditions were vastly different then and it would be unrealistic to attempt to return to this point in the past.

While socialists helped build post-war Britain, the post-war consensus itself was not “socialism” in the full and true sense. The 1945 government made great gains, but let’s be realistic about the limited aims of Attlee and his cabinet. This was no revolution and the reforms of the Labour government were happily accepted by Churchill’s 1951 Conservative government.

In many ways, Corbyn’s Labour has rejected many of the norms founded by the Attlee government — particularly in his opposition to nuclear weapons and his stance towards Nato. Owen Smith’s supporters were quite right to point out that, by refusing to commit to unconditional Nato action, Corbyn was making a break with Labour’s position since World War II — where the Smithites are wrong though is to uncritically accept this tradition of militarism and imperialism.

By all means, look to the past. Learn and be inspired, but do not try to turn the clock back. The ultimate aim of socialism should be the abolition of capitalism — anything less than this is reformism in the service of capital. Socialists may disagree about the pace of transition, or the means of enacting revolutionary change — but their ultimate aim must be the end of capitalism. The Labour Party has not yet seriously challenged capitalism — although it has certainly always had the potential to do so, but that’s a different subject.

It is up to activists both within the Labour Party and other left parties, as well as within organised labour to work together to build a new future, based on our current conditions and with no illusions about the past.

Communist Party, Turkey (KP): Enough is enough! Do not mess Syria up anymore!
| August 25, 2016 | 9:09 pm | Analysis, Party Voices, political struggle, Syria | No comments

Πέμπτη, 25 Αυγούστου 2016

Communist Party, Turkey (KP): Enough is enough! Do not mess Syria up anymore!
Statement by the Communist Party, Turkey.
The operation in Jarablus, Syria bogs down Turkey into the marsh of war. This totally illegitimate and incoherent operation should be stopped immediately.
Enough is enough!
Do not mess Syria up anymore!
The operation in Jarablus Syria bogs down Turkey into the marsh of war.This totally illegitimate and incoherent operation should be stopped immediately.
Turkey has once again, violated the sovereignty rights of Syria. Since from the beginning, the support of the outsiders, especially Turkey, to the armed gangs became the main cause for the Damascus administration loosing replacements to the international jihadist groups. Therefore, for anyone seeking peace in Syria it would be sufficient and necessary to stop intervening Syria’s domestic affairs and to respect the country’s sovereignty rights.
The Isis, which the Turkish Armed Forces are attacking now, foremost owes its victories in the region to the AKP government. The most advanced of all the places, where this US made organization openly gangs up, hires assassins and organizes meetings, has been Turkey. AKP has treated Isis and other terrorist groups as if they were part of its own paramilitary forces and has used them accordingly. Just recently it has been revealed apparently how the intelligence units,to say the least, “did not prevent” the suicide bomb attack at the wedding celebration at Gaziantep.
It is not surprising how the sides of the fight and the peace get mixed and turn into chaos in a context of an administration crisis and lots of armed groups in the field. Yet, today’s chaotic picture does not change the fact that the Isis has its strong replacements in Turkey. Nobody should believe this gang, having installed itself within the state and the government, would be defeated by being attacked at the neighbouring country.
There is no legal basis which allows AKP government to bring the Turkey’s side of the borders into the use of the Islamic gangs other than Isis and to provide bases. The evacuation of the town Karakamış as a consequence of this policy, proves to be a tragic development of how our country has being sink into the war.  However, the argument that tells this precaution is for the security of the civilians is groundless. The region is being made unmanned and being turned into a war zone for good.
AKP has turned Turkey into a tool at the hands of the imperialist states, the regional powers and even some gangs.
The Jarablus operation should be stopped.
Turkey should surrender letting the military groups’s activity.
Any organization pursuing destructive activities against Syria should be purged.
Turkey should not involve in any other activity than protecting the border security.
All the access and usage of the land, bases, aerial domain and other facilities of Turkey for the battles at Syria, should be terminated.
Communist Party, Turkey
Interview with Pável Blanco Cabrera, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Mexico (PCM)

Σάββατο, 20 Αυγούστου 2016

Interview with Pável Blanco Cabrera, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Mexico (PCM)

Interview of Pavel Blanco, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Mexico (Partido Comunista Mexicano, PCM), to the International Communist Press / August 20, 2016.
ICP: In the recent years, violence in Mexico, both related to drug trafficking groups, or as a part of a clearly paramilitary activity against the progressive forces, organizations and people and especially the communists has been on the rise. Your Party, PCM has also suffered attacks of these paramilitary forces. What are the causes of this wave of violence and what will be the consequences of this situation in the context of the class struggle? Can you also comment on the relation of this situation with the U.S. imperialism that never ceased to mark its presence in Mexico?
Pavel Blanco: First of all, I would like to send my brotherly greetings to the Communist Party of Turkey, with whom we share the same line in the revolutionary regrouping of the international communist movement. We will do everything to reiterate our solidarity on the face of the political events that violently convulse the class struggle there.
In Mexico it is possible to literally observe the face of capitalism that Marx was speaking of. It drips mud and blood from all its pores. The wave of violence that shakes us with more than 200,000 dead in 10 years is not a system failure. Rather, it is the logical consequence of capitalism that consists of barbarianism, terror, uncertainties, hunger and death. The so-called war of narco-trafficking, in which the Mexican state is directly involved, is a process of re-accommodation of markets, routes and stakeholders in order to control this business, which is laundered rapidly through financial investments, and sectors such as the real estate and production. Here we don’t only refer to the agricultural industry but also to the branches such as metals, mechanics, iron and steel and extractivism. So, it is a process of amplification of accumulation and a new economic branch that rapidly generates consequences for politics. The money buys the political parties, candidates, elected state officers, mayors, MPs, senators and governors, all of which strongly influence the presidency of the republic.
In this context, it is necessary to plant terror, demobilize and immobilize the people in order to prevent any kind of possibility of protest and opposition to the plundering of the country. It is imperative to avoid the popular or syndical organizations that would prevent the processes of overexploitation.
It is very striking that they force displacement of populations that decimate cities such as Ciudad Juarez or desolate towns and territories such as in Tamaulipas. Paradoxically, after the expulsion of the inhabitants and destruction of their houses and lands, they found oil wells and mine zones in these places.
The popular organizations are under the threat of state terror. For example, look at the class-based demands of the educational workers, or the Federation of the Socialist Peasant Students of Mexico, 43 of which disappeared in Ayotzinapa, and of course the Communist Party of Mexico. Five of our comrades including Raymundo Velazquez, who was the political secretary of the party in that region, were assassinated in Guerrero because they were opposing the Canadian mines there. Moreover, Enrique Lopez, who is a member of our Central Committee, has disappeared in Tamaulipas. In addition to a number of prisoners, we also have comrades passing through judicial processes. We would like to clarify that this is the consequence of having a specific position in the class struggle, in other words, fighting for the revolution. Only those who do nothing are at the margin of the possibility of suffering these strikes.
It is true that the North American imperialism has big interests and that since the late 1970s they promoted the narcotic operations on Mexico. They did it in collaboration with Colombian groups to finance their fight against the insurgent movements in Nicaragua and in other Central American countries. This is not a secret. Moreover, we should underline the presence of the Chinese capital in the important harbor of Lázaro Cárdenas in Michoacán, where they exchange steel with the chemicals used in the production of the raw material of a number of drugs.
At this point we would like to stop and think about this theoretical and practical question: In Mexico and for sure in almost all Latin America imperialism is identified with North America, and this position constantly creates deep political errors and strategic problems. The Communist Party of Mexico has the idea that imperialism as the actual phase of capitalism and characterized by monopoly capitalism also means that imperialism is not only an exterior but also an interior phenomena.  Speaking of the North American imperialism shouldn’t make one forget about the fight against the EU as an imperialist center or the inter-imperialist pact between Russia and China. Neither can other pacts between states or between capitalist economies such as MERCOSUR can be considered with sympathy. For us, the anti-imperialist fight is not an anti-North American fight. Rather, it is a fight against monopolies and we fight by confronting the monopolies in our country and in any other imperialist core. There is no “less bad” imperialism, all mean exploitation, pillage, plundering, war and death
ICP: There are millions of Mexican citizens and descendants of Mexicans in the United States, whose vast majority is part of the working class in this country. U.S. has never been an example of integration and acceptance but in the recent years the xenophobia and racism have increased even further and Mexicans, as the largest immigrant group, are one of the primary targets of xenophobia and racism. What is your opinion on the presence and role of Mexican workers in the struggle waged by the U.S. working class and the class character of the xenophobia?
PB: There are about 20 million Mexican or of Mexican origin workers in the US, and the number increases day by day, and year by year; it is our duty to contribute to raise awareness and organization of this population; during the bourgeois democratic revolutionary process in the last century, the Mexican workers of the USA were a stronghold of the anti-dictatorship fight which politically and financially supported the revolutionary forces of our country; phenomenon of migration peaked with the Second World War, and depending on the need for workforce, the North American border and the anti-immigrant mechanisms become more flexible or more harsh. The xenophobia and racism has been raging, not only against the Mexican workers but also workers of all nationalities who risk their lives in pursuit of employment there. It is PCM’s duty to fight to organize the Mexican workers to support the revolutionary process in our country and also to intervene in the class struggle for their rights and claims along with the North American workers and workers of other nationalities, who are exploited in the US. This happens by having a party organization at the borders, with which we’re moving forward, and for starting to have PCM cells among the Mexican workers in the US. It is clear that the class character of racism is one of the ideological pillars of the imperialist domination, which attacks all the workers.
ICP: Donald Trump is now officially the Republican candidate for the presidential elections, He is known for its anti-immigrant, anti-worker and racist rhetoric, towards the Mexicans in particular. What awaits the Mexican workers in the U.S. if Donald Trump is elected? The question can be asked for the working class in Mexico.
PB: Whoever wins the elections, may it be Mrs. Clinton or Trump, the loosing side will be the North American workers and the workers from other nationalities that shape the immigrant labor force. Trump resembles a scarecrow that is destined to express: “vote the lesser evil, vote the democrats”, which we consider to be a very dangerous position. Democrats or Republicans, the bourgeois parties of the USA do politics that are functional to imperialism. We already saw the fall of the myth, which claimed that it was a system only for the white; and the Obama administration turned out to be such an aggressive warmonger that it has no reason to envy Obama’s predecessor Bush. Now we will see how the myth, which claims that with a woman leading the USA, the world would go in a better direction, also crushes and falls. This is delusion, purely delusion.
No to Clinton and No to Trump, and we lament the wrongful politics done by CPUSA that navigates the opportunist flag of choosing a lesser evil. Whoever wins, will be a sworn enemy of the workers of the USA and the peoples of the world.
ICP: As the violence and repression increases in Mexico, the resistance of progressive forces and communists intensifies in response. We realize there is a revolutionary potential in the objective conditions in Mexico. What are the challenges, opportunities and the potential of revolutionary politics in Mexico?”
PB: That is true, the class struggle intensifies and the class conflict is present and evident. The labor-capital antagonism crystalizes especially wit the so-called structural reforms applied by the Mexican State, which embrace measures that devalue the labor and seek stability in the middle of the economic crisis.
We consider that the conditions are mature for a revolutionary process that according to our evaluation will be an anti-capitalist and anti-monopolist one with the goal of socialism-communism. We believe that a major obstacle at the moment is the mismatch between the objective bases, the limits of capitalism and subjective conditions of the moment, which are delaying; that is why since the V. Congress of PCM we are working to resolve this issue in two directions: building a strong, class-based workers and syndical movement on the one hand; and the development of the party itself in the principal strategic areas of the economy.
We are aware of the fact that without a strong communist party no revolutionary process would have any possibility to be successful.
Where are other revolutionary or anti-capitalist forces in Mexico, but none of them puts the proletariat in the center of their activity; in PCM we insist that the working class will be the epicenter of the revolutionary transformation; that is our advantage. Some words about an ingredient that is necessary for the revolutionary processes: the unity. We do not see it as a mere unification of organizations but as the unity of the class, we work exactly for that every day in every single work place.
The timeliness of the Leninist criticism in relation to the “parliamentary road” to socialism

The theses of the KKE for the 10th annual conference “V.I.Lenin and the contemporary world” which was held on the 22nd of April 2016 in Leningrad

  1. The entire history of the political labour movement from the 19th century until today has as its basic arena of controversy the path that should be taken in order to create a classless society.
  2. Two basic views emerged over time: the opportunist view about the possibility of reforming, “conquering” and utilizing the bourgeois state for socialism and the revolutionary view regarding the need to smash the bourgeois state. Lenin himself set the following demarcation line: “Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat.”
  3. This controversy is a reflection of the ideological confrontation about the bourgeois state and bourgeois democracy. The opportunists understand the bourgeois state-especially in the form of bourgeois parliamentary democracy- as a state that expresses the correlation of forces between the various classes, in essence as a “supra-class” state that expresses the democratically expressed will of the members of bourgeois society, regardless of which class they belong to. On the basis of this standpoint, they approach bourgeois democracy, the democratic form of the bourgeois state as favourable terrain that can be utilized to the benefit of socialism. In contrast, Marxists understand the class character of the bourgeois state, regardless of the exceptionally varied forms it has taken on historically. They understand bourgeois democracy as one of the varied forms of the dictatorship of capital and indeed the most “secure” form for the protection of the  “omnipotence of wealth”, as Lenin wrote in the State and Revolution.
  4. The position that bourgeois democracy and fascism share a common class denominator has been repeatedly borne out in history by the interchanges between fascist and parliamentary forms of government which have served the stabilization of bourgeois power in changing economic and political conditions. The most characteristic example is inter-war Germany, while in our country the transition from bourgeois democracy to the Metaxas dictatorship in 1936 took place with the almost unanimous support of the bourgeois parliament.
  5. Historical experience has clearly demonstrated that the passing of ministries of the bourgeois state into the hands of communists cannot be utilized in favour of socialism but indeed accelerates the co-option of communist parties by the bourgeois political system. Examples of this is the past participation in or support for bourgeois governments in Spain, France, Italy, Chile by CPs as well as more recently in a number of countries in Latin America, Cyprus, Portugal etc. Another characteristic example is the participation of the KKE in the government of “national unity” in 1944 and the acceptance of wage freezes and the liberalization of dismissals by the communist ministers in the name of making sure the government survived. In none of these cases did the support or participation in bourgeois governments operate in favour of socialism.
  6. The defense of the “parliamentary road” to socialism is not always openly formulated. It often lurks behind the formulation of varied transitional programmes that accept the possibility of utilizing the participation in a government on the terrain of capitalist ownership and the bourgeois state in order to improve the lives of the workers and sharpen the revolutionary mood of the masses. This analysis in essence denies both the economic laws of capitalism (as it considers that these laws when managed by a CP can used to benefit the people) and the class nature of the bourgeois state (as it promotes the “capture” of the bourgeois state as a means to overthrow it).
  7. hese views are in direct opposition to the theoretical analysis of Marx, Engels and Lenin on the state. The way in which Lenin explained the need to smash the bourgeois state in State and Revolution is characteristic. This analysis of Lenin constituted the basis for the adoption of the strategy for socialist revolution by the Bolshevik party formulated in the April Theses. Lenin indeed did not just write about this but practically applied the conclusions by stubbornly rejecting the strong-even inside the Bolshevik party- calls to participate in the Provisional Government (which was considered in this period to be the most democratic government in Europe) and directing the entire party towards its revolutionary overthrow.
  8. Over the course of time, this strategic analysis, which was borne out by the victorious October Revolution, did not endure. Strategic views that mechanistically transferred (to completely different conditions) the older strategic analysis of the “democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry” held sway in the International Communist Movement (ICM).The views concerning the possibility of a parliamentary transition to socialism over the course of time established themselves as a distinct current within the  ranks of the ICM, the eurocommunist current, which prevailed in major capitalist states (France, Italy, Spain) with tragic consequences for the labour movement, while basic aspects of this line were expressed in the analysis of nearly the entire ICM. Today however, significant historical experience has been accumulated from the efforts to utilize the participation in governments on the terrain of capitalist ownership to serve the goal of socialism.
  9. 2017 is the 100th anniversary of Lenin’s work State and Revolution. This anniversary should be used so that we remember, as he himself mentioned in this work, ” “forgotten words” of Marxism” (and Leninism we would add) on the question of the state. The CPs must struggle to gather together forces to smash the bourgeois state and build the socialist-communist economy and corresponding state institutions and reject the management of the capitalist economy and bourgeois state. They must in other words use the conclusions of the State and Revolution to guide their daily activity.
Declaration of the CC of the KKE: On the 70th anniversary of the Democratic Army of Greece 1946-1949

Δευτέρα, 15 Αυγούστου 2016

Declaration of the CC of the KKE: On the 70th anniversary of the Democratic Army of Greece 1946-1949

Athens, February 2016 / Source:

We are inspired and learn from the 100-year history of the KKE, from the 3-year epic of the DSE.

The CC of the KKE, the entire party and KNE, honours the 70th anniversary of the foundation of the democratic Army of Greece (DSE).
1946 was a year of important developments directly connected to the creation of the DSE, such as:
  • The 2nd Plenum of the CC of the KKE (12-15 February 1946), which began exactly a year after of the signing of the Varkiza Agreement (12th of February 1945).The 2nd Plenum, even if in a contradictory way, was the one that decided to conduct the armed struggle.
  • The attack of a group of partisans on the gendarmerie station of Litohoro, on the night of the 30th and early in the morning of the 31st of March 1946, took place on the eve of the parliamentary elections.
  • The foundation of the General Headquarters of the Partisans (28th of October 1946), which is in essence the date of the foundation of the DSE. The official name was finalized on the 27th of December 1946, with the issuing of the Order of the General Headquarters of the Partisans, which set “the name of the partisan forces as being the DEMOCRATIC ARMY OF GREECE”.
The 70th anniversary finds the KKE waging a stable and decisive struggle for the interests of the working class and popular strata, for their alliance and the regroupment of the labour movement, in the conditions of the counterrevolutions that prevailed in the period 1989-1991 and of the current crisis of the international communist movement.
These conditions create additional difficulties for the struggle. They have a paralytic impact and disorient the  working class and popular forces, despite the deep and prolonged capitalist economic crisis in Greece, its coordinate outbreak at a global level in 2008, the unstable recovery and the manifestation of repeated crisis phenomena later on, expose the impasses of capitalism, its historically obsolete character.
In the framework of this political correlation of forces at a global level that is negative for the communist movement and the peoples, the KKE waged and wages tough social and political battles. It has ideologically, politically and organizationally regrouped itself, having formed a revolutionary strategy for the contemporary conditions and having reinforced its communist characteristics.
The KKE had developed its deep roots amongst the people initially in the harsh class struggles before the 2nd World War, but especially during the bloody struggles of the 1940s when communist men and women fought and died in the mountains, were executed by firing squads (at Goudi, Pavlos Melas etc.), in the prisons (Aigina etc.), the concentration camps (Makronisos etc) and the places of exile.
All these struggles, especially the class struggle of the DSE, were factors that lent great strength and developed consciousness of the communist responsibility, so that the KKE could stand upright during the counterrevolutions of 1989-1991, draw strength, maintain its historical continuity, and deal with offensive launched by opportunist factionalism to liquidate it. These factionalists had united with other social-democratic forces in the “Coalition of the Left and Progress” in these efforts.
At the same time, the KKE is convinced that learning from the DSE and drawing conclusions that strengthen the class struggle today, the struggle for socialism-communism is the real and substantial way to honour the history of the DSE and the heroic hundred-year history of the Communist Party more generally. This is the reason that the critical study of the history of the KKE has nothing to do with a one-side obsession with mistakes or an opportunist embellishment of the facts that refuses to draw conclusions from the past.
The study of the history of the KKE and the international communist movement has been a valuable resource for our party regarding the formation of its strategy. The compass for this is the scientific analysis of capitalist reality, which is a guarantee that the time distance from the historical events does not lead to easy criticisms detached from the entirety of the factors that formed these situations.
The KKE does not conceal the weaknesses of the subjective factor that had a negative impact on the outcome of the DSE’s struggle. It considers incorrect and misleading, as well as unscientific, to attribute all the problems that emerged to objective causes and to prettify its political line and the political line of the international communist movement.
The three-year struggle of the DSE was just, heroic and magnificent.
It expressed the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population against the interests of their oppressors and exploiters. It expressed the interests of the working class and its basic allies, the impoverished farmers and poor urban self-employed strata. Bourgeois state power at that time faced the greatest danger to its existence .The struggle of the DSE was the supreme expression of the class struggle in Greece during the 20th century.
The KKE is proud of the army of heroes it educated. Thousands of communist men and women gave the last ounce of their strength so that the epic of the DSE could be realized, fighting and marching day and night, often without food, many barefoot, through ice and storms.
The activity and self-sacrifice of tens of thousands of dead fighting men and women of the DSE, the wounded, those imprisoned for belonging to its ranks and fighting for its cause and all those who struggled bravely in Greece and in political exile, provide lessons and inspiration both ethically and politically. The majority of them were young people, organized in the Democratic Youth of Greece (DNE) and EPON, and they constituted about 80% of the DSE’s overall strength.
The KKE honours all those men and women who fought heroically, on the mountains of Grammos and Vitsi, on Ipeiros and Thessaly, in Roumeli and the Peloponnese, in Macedonia and Thrace, in Crete, on the islands of the Ionian and Aegean, everywhere where the DSE was active.
The DSE confronted the local bourgeoisie and all its political forces (both “rightwing” and “centrist”) and their state, and also their allies, like the capitalists states of Great Britain and the USA. Without the latter’s military, financial and political backing, the bourgeois class in Greece could not have been victorious.
It is characteristic that in the final battle on Grammos, the DSE deployed about 12,500 fighters with light weapons, while the government’s army was calculated at being over 100,000 men, with 120 artillery pieces, many tanks and airforce support. This unequal class confrontation makes the legacy of the DSE even more valuable in political and moral terms.
The DSE was a people’s army. It was based on the organizational and military experience of ELAS’s[1]struggle during the occupation and December 1944. The EAM[2]-led resistance and the crucial and objectively class-based conflict of December had left an important militant legacy in the people’s consciousness, and in terms of the forms of organization and struggle that could be used.
The great strength of the DSE was its bonds with the people, especially in the regions of Free Greece[3]. The poor popular masses were the ones who provided the DSE with all kinds of assistance, fighters, food and clothes; they assisted in the construction of fortifications. Intelligence gathering, the organization of the people’s militia. They found support and strength in the DSE the popular institutions for the organization of social-political life (people’s councils, people’s militias, people’s courts) in the areas where the DSE was in control. These institutions dealt with a plethora of problems, such as the protection of children and saving them from bombings and enslavement, their education and the establishment of schools. This is the reason why the bourgeois stated carried out the forced deportation of hundreds of thousands of people from the villages, which they hypocritically described as being “affected by the rebels”, in order to isolate the DSE from the basic source of its strength.
In contrast with the bourgeois army, the characteristic feature of the DSE was its struggle for the just cause of the people, its self-sacrifice and conscious discipline. It combines the militant implementation of orders with the democracy of assemblies at its various levels, where the lower-ranked criticized the higher-ranked and vice versa, where assessments were made about military operations in a spirit of self-criticism.
Thousands of military leaders at all levels emerged from the ranks of the DSE, such as: Giannis Alexandrou (Diamantis), Harilaos Florakis (Yiotis), Nikos Triantafyllou, Stefanos Giouzelis, Panos Zaras, Kostas Karagiorgis, Gianis Podas, Kostas Koligiannis,(Arvanitis), Thanasis Genios (Lassanis), Pantelis Vainas, Giorgos Ilaidis (Sofianos), ), Nikos Theocharopoulos (Skotidas), Tassos Petsas, Romas Petsos, Giorgis Vogias (Kartsiotis), Antonis Aggeloulis (Vratsanos), Kosmas Spanos (Amyntas), Giorgos Giannoulis, Thomas Palas (Koziakas), Dimitris Giannakouras (Perdikas), Polychronis Vais (Achilleas Petritis), Ilias Alevras, Kostas Xydeas, Michalis Papadamos (feriaos), Manolis Stathakis, Aristos Kamarinos, Kostas Tsolakis, Thymios Kapsis (Anapodos), Giorgos Giorgiadis, Fotis Sgouros, Gerasimos Grigoratos (Astrapogiannos).
The role of the Officers’ School of the DSE in producing military cadres, which also contributed to the development of their military capabilities, must be underlined.
Officers that came from the bourgeois army also served in the DSE, such as: Giannis Malagaris, Giorgos Samaridis (Logothetis), Giannis Kilismanis, Stefanos Papagiannis, Kostas Kanellopoulos, Pavlos Tompoulidis, Nikos Terzoglou (Pyravlos), Thodoros Kallinos (Amarmpeis), Kostas Basakidis, Christos Stefopoulos, Dimitris Tsitsipis, Theodosis Zervas, Vasilis Venetsanopoulos, Giorgos Kallianesis (Messinis), Giannis Manias, Dimitris Koukouras, Thymios Zoulas, Giorgos Katemis, Kostas Antonopoulos (Kronos), Alekos Papageorgiou, Giorgos Kontalonis.
The role of the Political Commissars was a decisive factor its functioning, in inspiring its fighting men and women, in their education and political stance towards the civilian population and also towards the conscripts of the bourgeois army.
Many Political Commissars emerged. The following can be mentioned indicatively: Nikos Belogiannis, Giannis Salas, Vangelis Rogkakos, Giorgos Erythriadis (Petris), Mitsos Vamvakas, Leonidas Stringos, Nikos Kanakaridis,(Lampros), Kostas Loules, Kostas Laoutaris, Nionios Traiforos, Panagiotis Yfantis (Iraklis), Kostas Karakanis (Takis), Nikos Kliafas, Petros Iosifidis, Sonia Eleftheriadou, Roidis Michalakis, Katina-Tsveta Andreopoulou, Eleftheria Ioannidou, Kosmas Boukovinas, Lydia Kalaitzidou, Aspasia Daskalopoulou, Antonis Antoniadis (Simos), AristeidisTheocharis, Xrysoula Gogoglou, Gianna Trikalinou, Manolis Fragkiadakis, Maria Veliou (Parasekevoula), Dimitris Kyrlas, Melpomeni Dimanopoulou, Athanasia Kalaitzidou.
The ideological-political work of the DSE served its military-political goal.
It developed substantial publishing activity as well. The following magazines and newspapers were published:”Exormisi “, “Pros ti Niki”, “Dimokratikos Stratos”, “Neos Machitis”, “Agrotikos Agonas”, “Machitri”, “Agonistria “, “Partizana.”Apart from the central printing press of the DSE, each Divisional headquarters produced its own daily news bulletin and newspaper. Special newspapers were published in the languages of the Slav-Macedons, and of the Muslims from Thrace.
In this period the following newspapers were also illegally published: ‘Rizospastis” in Athens and Piraeus.”Laiki Foni” in Thessaloniki.”Lefteria”in Volos.”Laiki Foni” in Larissa. Illegal party newspapers were also published in other regions, such as “Morias” in the Peloponnese, “Ginaioi” in Samos etc.
The publishing house “Free Greece” was also established, which published hundreds of books in print runs of thousands.
The radio station “Free Greece” began to broadcast in July 1947, initially from Belgrade and then later from Bucharest. Aphrodite Nodara (Eleni Makri) was assigned responsibility for it by the KKE; its editors were Giorgis Angourakis (Alekos Psiloreitis), Periklis Kalodikis, Dimitris Hadzis, Mariana Veaki and its announcers were Takis Leivadas and Gianna Kalodiki.
Ideological lessons, lectures and speeches were organized for the fighters of the DSE. These focused on lifting their morale and informing them about the current political developments and tasks of the DSE. Lessons on the Programme and Statutes of the KKE were also held.
Units of the DSE distributed or fly posted the print material in villages and cities. Handmade loudspeakers were also used by DSE units to address themselves to the soldiers of the bourgeois army, calling on them not to fight against the militant people.
When the conditions allowed, especially on anniversaries, various units of the DSE in the liberated areas organized evenings of entertainment with theatrical performances, poetry recitals and songs. Theatre troupes were organized and even a film crew.
An Enlightenment Bureau of the DSE’s Headquarters was set up to organize and conduct political enlightenment work. At a central level the following, amongst others, participated in this work: Takis Mamatsis, Panagiotis Mavromatis, Zinon Zorzovilis, Parisis Aggelidis, Vasos Georgiou, Nikos Simitzis, Paschalis Paschalefski, and Apostolos Spilios.
The participation of women in the activity of the DSE was significant. They constituted 1/4 of its overall strength.
1,027 women reached officer or NCO ranks in the DSE.
By the end of 1948, women constituted over 20% of the people’s organs and institutions in Free Greece.
In Greece, and elsewhere, in this period, where the reactionary view that women were inferior prevailed and where women’s inequality was a legal fact (they still did not have the right to vote), the DSE elevated the working woman and the young women from villages into playing a leading role in the political developments, something that paved the way for a better life. The women of the DSE proved themselves to be the equals of their male comrades. The special work regarding women that was carried out in the ranks of the DSE and was expressed through the creation of the “Pan-Hellenic Democratic Union of Women”, whose President was initially Chrysa Chatzivasileiou and then later Roula Koukoulou, contributed to this.
The women of the DSE provoked awe in the ranks of the larger and better equipped bourgeois army comprised entirely of men. The “glorious” Greek-British-US army felt humiliated when the women of the DSE, together with the men, won battles. It shook their morale. At the same time, women contributed to the People’s Militia and also behind enemy lines through the distribution of propaganda, the organization of the people’s protests, and also contact for intelligence gathering.
Thousands of heroic women emerged from the DSE, both as fighters and also as military commanders and political commissars. It is impossible to single out one of the bright personalities of women fighters, because the apparently different stories of blood, self-sacrifice, faith in ideals are united in a single story, that belongs to the thousands of men and women who honoured the KKE, joined the DSE, lived and sacrificed themselves heroically for the people.
There follows a list of some of the honoured dead heroines of the KKE in the mountains and cities: Eirini-Mirka Gini, Vangelitsa Kousiantza, Athina Benekou, Vangelio Kladou, Maria Boraki, Maria Lioudaki, Antzouleta Merkouri, Dionysia Grigoratou, Eleni Oikonomou, Iordana Slatnikou, Germania Paikou, Tasia Konstantinidou, Eleni Chroni, Peristera Vlachou, Polyxeni Kanonidou, Koula Eleftheriadou, Ismini Sidiropoulou, the gypsy Magdalene Panagiotidou and thousands of others.
The contribution of the DSE’s medical service made an irreplaceable contribution to the struggle. At the beginning it lacked doctors and nurses, and even the most basic equipment. They used cloths and shirts for bandages, while they collected cotton extracted by the villagers from pillows and quilts.
Hospitals were built through the tireless efforts of the fighters and supporters of the DSE, the largest one was located in Aspri Petra in Grammos, and other ones were built in the Prespes region, Taugetos, Vitsi, Psiana, Zagori, Spinasa and elsewhere. Wards were built, even using tree trunks.
At the same time, the lack of nursing staff was dealt with, as far as possible, through the creation of nursing schools.152 members of the DSE graduated from the Middle Medical School of the DSE with the rank of Lieutenant of the medical Service. Later, 75 others also graduated. Over 300 men and women graduated from the Nursing School.
Doctors and some medical students played a decisive role in the organization and functioning of the DSE’s medical Service. Amongst them the Professor of Medicine, Petros Kokkalis, the doctors Giorgos Tzalamoukas, Nontas Sakellariou, Nikos Kokoulios or Paliouras (the DSE’ first doctor), Giorgos Nedelkos, Takis Skyftis, Vasilis Dadialaris, Avgi Ktena, Kaiti Nikolettou-Gizeli, Kaiti Potiri, Vasiliki Kritiski, the student Patra Mona (Spengou).Volunteer doctors from other countries also contributed, like the Hungarian doctor Tibor, as well as doctors from the bourgeois army that joined the DSE, like Panagiotis Petropoulos.
The small number of doctors, with the assistance of nursing staff and other personnel, despite the terrifying shortages, the complete absence of the suitable conditions for their work, worked miracles in their constant struggle against death. They were able to heal and save thousands of the DSE’s fighters. They healed around 12,000 fighters in the Grammos-Vitsi region alone.
The achievements of the doctors and medical staff of the DSE flowed from their faith in the just cause of their struggle. Many sacrificed themselves, especially stretcher bearers , many of them women, and also doctors.
Many artists and scientists, and men and women of letters participated in the ranks of the tens of thousands of fighters of the DSE, like the writers Dimitris Hatzis, Fotis Aggoules, Giorgis Sevastikoglou, Takis Adamos, Giorgis lamprinos, Dimitris Ravanis-Rentis, Mitsos Alexandropoulos, Alexis Parnis, Nikos Kytopoulos, Kostas Pournaris (Bosis), Anthos Filitas (Anthimos Hatzianthimou), Vasilis Pigis, Nikos Papandreou, the historian Giorgis Zoidis, the director Manos Zacharias, the photographer Apostolos Mousouris, the actors Giannis Veakis, Antonis Giannidis, the painters Giorgos Dimou, Giorgos Goulas and many others.
The following supported and assisted the DSE from abroad: the sculptor Memos Makris, the philologist Giorgis Athanasiadis, the writers Elli Alexiou, Melpo Axioti, Theodosis Pieridis, Elli Lampridi, Thrasos Kastanakis and many others.
Others in exile and prison supported the DSE such as the composer Mikis Theodorakis, many writers and poets, such as Giannis Ritsos, Kostas Varnalis, Aggelos Sikelianos, Tasos Leivaditis, Themos Kornaros, Kostas Giannopoulos, Nikiforos Vrettakos, Manolis Anagnostakis, Viktoria Theodorou, Did Sotiriou, Andreas Fragkias, Michalis Katsaros, Stratis Doukas, Giorgos Kotzioulas, Menelaos Lountemis, Nikos Karouzos, Nikos Kabbadias, Giorgos Valetas, Kostas Kalatzis 9Thessalos), Alki Zei, Galateia Kazantzaki, the engraver A.Tassos, the painters Giorgis Farsakidis, Giannis Stefanidis, Valias Semertzidis, Vasilis Armaos, Dimitris Gioldasis, Thomas Molos, Christos Daglis, Vasilis Vlasidis, Vaso Katraki, Katerina Hariati-Sismani, the critic Foibos Anogeianakis, the composer Alekos Xenos, the director Nikos Koundouros, the university professor Giannis Imbriotis, the educational theorist Roza Imvriotis, the art critic Markos Avgeris, the historians Giannis Kordatos and Dimitris Fotiadis the actors Manos Katrakis, Aleka Paizi, Tzavalas Karousos, Titos vandis, Aspasia Papathanasiou, Olympia Papadouka, Malaina Anousaki, Argyro Vokovits, Kaiti Diridoua, Taugetis, Nikos fermas, Giorgos Giolasis, Kostas Baladhmas, the actor and writer George Sari, the lyricist Kostas Virvos, the composer Thodoros Derveniotis and many others.
Thousands of militants in the prisons and concentration camps wrote poems or expressed their support for the people’s struggle through paintings and drawings.
The DSE’s struggle inspired foreign poets of a global standing, like Nazim Hikmet, Pablo Neruda, Paul Eluard and others.
Today the DSE’s struggle inspires many and also annoys the class enemy and those that have compromised with it. The bourgeoisie and those involved in its mechanisms have unleashed enormous slanders against the DSE.
The bourgeoisie and its supporters slander and distort the struggle of the DSE, because they well know that it represented the highest form of struggle, in a period when a class conflict over power was being waged in an objective sense. They polemicize against it because their interests lie in concealing the source of all injustice, i.e. the contradiction between capital and wage labour. Their interests lie in impeding the working class and popular forces from realizing the necessity and timeliness of socialism.
The accusations about EAM being guided by “foreign, Bulgarian agents” and the talk about “communist gangs” of previous decades is again being regurgitated by fascist Golden Dawn, a component part of the rotten bourgeois political system. This is being regurgitated by all those that admire the collaborationist security battalions and the Hitler’s’ stormtroopers and have theories about “racial purity” and carry our murderous attacks against the people and militants.
We also have those who seek to turn history on its head and promote the ahistorical unscientific and anticommunist theory of the “two extremes” in order to identify communism with fascism, Stalin with Hitler, Stalin who led the titanic struggle to crush the Nazi monster. The Soviet Union contributed to this struggle with 20 million dead and around 10 million injured and disabled.
The obsession with alleged mistakes, the allegedly futility of the struggle, the ideological construct that says that the armed struggle was adventurism on the part of the leadership of the KKE and of the General Secretary of the CC, Nikos Zachariadis, as well as a sophisticated anti-communism are component elements of bourgeois propaganda, which are also being reproduced by opportunism and its various formations as regards the reasons for the DSE’s defeat and also in relation to the KKE’s activity.
And opportunism conceals the violence of the bourgeois state, which is expressed by its laws, institutions and organs of power. It conceals the multi-faceted violence carried out by the capitalists against the workers and employees in the workplaces.
Such positions demonstrate that their supporters are in reality in favour of the reactionary and irrational theory about the “end of history”, in opposition to the fact confirmed many times over that historical development is governed by the laws of class struggle.
Every worker, every young person that begins their lives in the jungle where the rule of the exploiter prevails has every interest in understanding, with the assistance of the KKE, the cause and goal of the ideological offensive of those that defend capitalist exploitation directly and indirectly.
They seek to attack the class struggle today, in order impose capital’s strategy without endangering the capitalist system and the perpetuation of the exploitation of man by man. Irrespective of the varied expressions of opposition to the DSE’s struggle, the varied slanders and distortions, there is a unified strategy: The working class and popular strata must remain helpless in the face of the consequences of the contradictions, the decay and barbarity of capitalism or to satisfy themselves with the dead-end struggle of allegedly correcting it.
No slanderous, anticommunist and opportunist offensive can obscure the struggle of the KKE, the struggle of the DSE, their courage and moral standing. It is our duty to disseminate the historical truth even more widely. The younger generations must come to know of the struggle of the Democratic Army of Greece.

[1] Greek People’s Liberation Army (ELAS): ELAS was the military wing of the National Liberation Movement (EAM)
[2] National Liberation Movement (EAM) was founded on the 27th of December 1941 in occupied Athens at the initiative of the KKE.
[3] Free Greece. Areas of Greece that were under the control of the DSE.
The DSE waged a necessary struggle.
The bourgeois side had lost its ability to manipulate the majority of the people to a great extent. It was stigmatized by either its collaboration with the occupiers, or its flight, or its absence from the liberation struggle. In contrast, the KKE, as the heart of EAM-ELAS, of the people’s armed struggle during the occupation period, had won over the largest section of the people. Objectively, the correlation of forces between the two basic rival classes, the bourgeois class and the working class, had changed.
The entrapment of the KKE and EAM-ELAS in the British High Command of the Middle East (1943), in the Agreements of Lebanon [1](1944) and Caserta (1944), the defeat of December 1944, as well as the unacceptable Varkiza Agreement, had not brought about the change in the correlation of forces that the bourgeois forces had hoped for, despite a certain regroupment of the bourgeois state that was achieved after December, mainly thanks to the intervention of G.  Britain.
Objectively, the intense armed class confrontation sharpened after the liberation which would either have led to overthrow of bourgeois and through the isolation of its foreign backers or to the defeat of the popular forces, to the isolation of the KKE and to the restabilization of bourgeois power.
For all the above reasons, the claim that has been put forwards up until today is completely baseless i.e. that if the bourgeois side had observed the Varkiza Agreement then there could have been basically smooth democratic developments in Greece.
The same baseless and dishonest claim, which exclusively targets the KKE, is the one that says that the KKE and people would have benefited if EAM had taken part in the parliamentary elections of the 31st of March 1946.
The persecution of thousands of supporters of EAM and ELAS, who were forced to go to the mountains and others to become political refugees (in Boulkes [2]and elsewhere), the exoneration and organic co-option  of the security battalions and other collaborationist forces into the armed and administrative apparatus of the state, the presence of thousands of British soldiers after 1945, all together along with other things were the conditions for capitalist regroupment and reconstruction, after the major destruction of the war, the black market and other consequences.
Thirteen months after the Varkiza Agreement, the following situation had been formed at the expense of the EAM movement.1,289 murders, 6,671 woundings, 31,632 acts of torture, 18,767 acts of looting and imprisonment, 84,931 arrests, 509 attempted murders, 265 rapes.
The gangs of Sourlas, Katsareas, Manganas, Tsaous Anton, the “X” units and dozens of other groups ran riot all over Greece, collaborators with the occupiers and paid killers, which the bourgeois political parties and state apparatus protected with assistance of the British army.
The elections on the 31st of march 1946 were held in these conditions and with adulterated electoral lists.
The participation of the KKE and EAM in the 1946 elections would have legitimized a deeply anti-people situation and would have fostered illusions that it was possible, via elections, to overturn the predetermined strategy of the domestic and foreign capitalist forces to break the KKE and EAM, to decimate the people’s movement without a  fight .
In parallel to this, after the elections of the 31st of March 1946 and the rigged referendum of the 1st of September concerning the King’s return, state repression was buttressed even further by the 3rd Decree (1946) and law 509/1947 “on the dissemination of ideas that have the aim of overthrowing the existing social system” etc.
In the face of the dilemma “submission or organization of the struggle and counterattack”, the people’s movement chose the latter. The DSE demonstrated that the mistakes of the KKE were not due to any intention to compromise or be co-opted.The DSE was the clearest demonstration that the social contradictions cannot be tamed by ideological constructs about “national unity” and the alleged end of class as a defining category.The DSE saved the honour of the people and the KKE.
The struggle of the DSE was an internationalist struggle. The KKE, in conditions formed by Churchill’s speech in Fulton about an “Iron Curtain” (March 1946), the Truman Doctrine (1947), the Marshall Plan (1947) and the foundation of NATO (April 1949), completely fulfilled its internationalist duty towards the working class and the other communist parties, with enormous sacrifices and in a unique way in capitalist Europe.
The major internationalist contribution of the KKE and DSE is demonstrated by the fact, amongst other things, that two strongest imperialist powers, G.Britain and the USA were forced to actively turn their attention to the armed people’s movement in Greece, to finance the domestic bourgeoisie so that it could stand on its feet and engaged in its  political and administrative affairs in order to shore up its state.
The DSE functioned as a shield for the People’s Democracies of Albania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Romania in the crucial period from 1946 to 1949.
The All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (CPSU) and other communist parties stood at the side of the KKE and assisted the DSE in many ways, and also in terms of dealing with the consequences of the organized withdrawal of the DSE’s forces after the final battle on Grammos. They welcomed and sheltered 25,000 children (who were literally saved from hunger, bombs and the “reformatories” of Queen Friederiki). Later on, they welcomed tens of thousands of political refugees, who found warm hospitality, work, education, culture and security for themselves and the younger generations of political refugees in the states of socialist construction.
Significant international solidarity with the DSE was also developed by the labour-people’s and communist movement in capitalist countries. One of the expressions of this was the visit of the French delegation, which included the great poet Paul Eluard, to Free Greece and the General Headquarters of the DSE in 1949.
These acts were an expression of internationalist solidarity and support, even if this was expressed in an uneven way amongst the communist parties.
The DSE was founded, developed and was active immediately after World War II, whose end was accompanied by turnarounds in the alignment of international capitalist alliances. Despite the significant change in the global correlation of forces in Europe and Asia in favour of the communist forces, it still remained in favour of capitalism, centred on the USA. Indeed, capitalism strengthened its positions, entering a phase of reconstruction and declaring a “Cold War” and attempting to undermine the Communist Parties that were in power.
In these conditions, the international communist movement, primarily the Soviet Union and the Communist Parties of Socialist Construction did not maintain the same stance over the entire period of the DSE’s struggle as regards the generalization of the armed struggle in Greece.
The differing stances of the Communist Parties in power was related to how they assessed the intentions and plans of the former allies in World War II, mainly the USA, towards the burgeoning formers of workers’-people’s power in the Balkan countries and other countries in Central And Eastern Europe.
In the first phase, they considered that the generalization of the armed struggle in Greece could function as a pretext for a global conflict, which they sought to avoid. Later on, after the further hardening of the USA’s stance, with the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan, the generalization of the armed struggle in Greece had their agreement, but was not accompanied by the corresponding assistance.
The issue of the stance of the international communist movement towards the DSE will be fully illuminated through access to the necessary and still unknown archive material.
The sharpening of the class struggle at an international level did not find the international communist movement organizationally and ideologically and politically prepared. Indeed there was an intense confrontation being waged within its ranks.
The detachment of 8 countries from the imperialist camp after 1945 (Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, GDR, Yugoslavia) was not a confirmation of the international communist movement’s strategy. The decisive liberating role of the Red Army was a determining factor in these countries as well as the strengthened position of the Soviet Union after World war II.
In the international communist movement, especially in countries where the communist parties that were in power or struggling for power, contradictions continued to prevail regarding its strategy. Something that was also expressed during World War II. The primary issue was that World War II was not assessed as being an inter-imperialist war on the part of both the sides of capitalist states and the struggle for the way out from the war with workers’ power was not declared as a common strategic goal.
The struggle of the DSE was impacted in this period by the contradictions and weaknesses in the strategy of the international communist movement, and therefore of the KKE. Our party could not draw correct conclusions from the course of the EAM movement during the occupation (Lebanon and Caserta Agreements, the political line of “National Unity”) and December 1944. The political governance, which was called “a government of the people” in the Programme of the KKE and EAM and was considered as a transitional step to socialism, was utopian.
Despite all this, the DSE had the potential to be victorious, with the precondition that the KKE would have carried out the necessary changes to its strategy in 1946 and would have organized the armed struggle of the people and an uprising focusing on the major cities (Athens, Piraeus, Thessaloniki and others).In 1946, the bourgeois army had not yet been reorganized and the KKE and EAM had many organized forces in its ranks. In the same period, many thousands of communists and other supporters of EAM were free and the bourgeois state had not yet emptied the villages.
However, the leadership of the KKE, even if it did not agree with the position of the international communist movement (Stalin, Dimitrov etc) in favour of EAM participating in the elections of 1946, did not decisively and promptly organize a generalized armed uprising.
Later on, the KKE, clear that the armed struggle was not being carried out to act as a secondary means of pressure for “smooth democratic developments” (the course of events  itself confirmed this) attempted to accelerate the generalization of the armed struggle. However, the passage of time worked against the effectiveness of the DSE in the final confrontation. The problem of reserves was also a significant one for the DSE.
70 years afterwards, the bourgeois political system is attempting to regroup itself in order to impede the radicalization of the people, to blunt the people’s indignation about the war being waged against their needs and gains by the capitalist class and its power, the European Union and the SYRIZA-ANEL government, which operates in the same direction as the previous governments of ND and PASOK.
History teaches that there can be no pro-people government, whatever it is called and whatever parties participate in it, as long as political power, the means of production and all the wealth produced by the working class belongs to the capitalists, as long as Greece participates in the imperialist unions of the EU and NATO.
The KKE, experienced and drawing on the lessons of its history, aims and can become a beacon for a new and victorious class confrontation for socialism, which is necessary, timely and realistic.
The Central Committee of the KKE

[1] Today the KKE assesses that by signing the agreements of Lebanon and Caserta the party and EAM made unacceptable retreats and concessions to the bourgeoisie and the British imperialists in the name of “national unity”, with the result that the subjective conditions were not formed, which together with other factors would have contributed to the victory of the working class and popular forces after the t German fascists were driven out.
[2] In Yugoslavia
Communist Party of India (Marxist): No Bases for US Armed Forces

Πέμπτη, 14 Απριλίου 2016

Communist Party of India (Marxist): No Bases for US Armed Forces
Source: Solidnet.
The Modi government has taken the dangerous step of deepening military collaboration with the United States by agreeing to allow US armed forces to use base facilities in Indian naval and air force bases.
The US Defence Secretary and the Indian Defence Minister have announced an in principle agreement has been reached for a Logistics Exchange  Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA). This is just another name for the Logistic Support Agreement (LSA) that the United States enters into with military allies like Philippines, South Korea and Japan. Unlike what the Defence Minister says, refueling, maintenance and repair facilities for American ships and airplanes will require the  stationing of US armed forces personnel on Indian soil on a regular basis.
Along with this agreement, the Defence Minister has indicated that two other agreements are on the anvil, Communication and Information Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) and Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA).  These will make the Indian armed forces command and control structure integrated with the US armed forces. In doing so, the BJP government has crossed a line which no other government has done  since independence – converting India into a fullfledged military ally of the United States.
By this, the Modi government has compromised national sovereignty and the strategic autonomy of the country.  All political parties and patriotic citizens should oppose this surrender to the USA. The Modi government must be told that these anti-national steps do not have the support of the people. It should immediately retract from signing the Logistics Agreement.
Pablo Picasso- Why I became a Communist
| April 10, 2016 | 9:49 pm | Party Voices, political struggle | No comments

Κυριακή, 10 Απριλίου 2016

Pablo Picasso- Why I became a Communist

Why I became a Communist.
Pablo Picasso, October 1944.
My JOINING the Communist Party is a logical step in my life, my work and gives them their meaning. Through design and color, 1 have tried to penetrate deeper into a knowledge of the world and of men so that this knowledge might free us. In my own way I have always said what I considered most true, most just and best and, therefore, most beautiful. But during the oppression and the insurrection I felt that that was not enough, that I had to fight not only with painting but with my whole being. Previously, out of a sort of “innocence,” I had not understood this. I have become a Communist because our party strives more than any other to know and to build the world, to make men clearer thinkers, more free and more happy. 
I have become a Communist because the Communists are the bravest in France, in the Soviet Union, as they are in my own country, Spain. I have never felt more free, more complete than since I jomed. While I wait for the time when Spain can take me back again, the French Communist Party is a fatherland for me. In it I find again all my friends the great scientists Paul Langevin and Frederick Joliot-Curie, the great writers Louis Aragon and Paul Eluard, and so many of the beautiful faces of the insurgents of Paris. I am again among my brothers.