Category: socialism
October Revolution’s 100th anniversary: Leningrad will host the 19th IMCWP on November

Thursday, April 27, 2017

October Revolution’s 100th anniversary: Leningrad will host the 19th IMCWP on November

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2017/04/october-revolutions-100th-anniversary.html
Twenty-seven Communist and Workers’ Parties from all over the world gathered in Moscow for a two day meeting of the Working Group (WG) of the 19th International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties (IMCWP)

In the meeting, which was held on 21-22 April, the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) was represented by Giorgos Marinos, member of the Political Bureau, Elisseos Vagenas, member of the CC and head of the Party’s International Relations department and Danae Helmi, member of the International Relations committee of the CC of KNE. 
The opening speech was delivered by the President of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) Gennadi Zyuganov, while the participants discussed the preparations for the 19th International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties (IMCWP) which will be held in Leningrad (St.Petersburg) on 2-3 November 2017. The theme  for the meeting is decided to be : “The 100th anniversary of the great October socialist revolution: the ideals of the communist movement, revitalizing the struggle against imperialistic wars, for peace and socalism“.
 
The participants at the Working Group had also the opportunity to visit the Red Square and the Mausoleum of Vladimir Ilich Lenin, on the occasion of his 147th birthday.
Communist Party of Greece: Criticism of certain contemporary opportunist views on the state

Thursday, April 20, 2017

Communist Party of Greece: Criticism of certain contemporary opportunist views on the state

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2017/04/communist-party-of-greece-criticism-of.html

POSITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS SECTION OF THE CC OF THE KKE AT THE 11th ANNUAL CONFERENCE “V.I.LENIN, THE OCTOBER REVOLUTION AND THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD”.

Source: inter.kke.gr.

The importance and timeliness of Lenin’s work on the state. 

100 years ago, a few months before the Great October Socialist Revolution and in particularly difficult and complex political conditions, V.I. Lenin wrote a fundamentally important work, “The State and Revolution”, which, of course, was published for the first time after the October Revolution in 1918.
In this work, Lenin highlighted the essence and analyzed the class nature of the state: “The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonisms objectively cannot be reconciled. And, conversely, the existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable.”[1]

Lenin in this work also establishes the need and timeliness of the socialist revolution and workers’ state.
It was based on the views of K. Marx and F. Engels regarding the issue of the state, which were formulated in several works, such as the “Communist Manifesto”, “the 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte”, “the Civil War in France”, the “Critique of the Gotha Programme”, Engels’ letter to Bebel on 18-18 of March 1875, Engels’ introduction to the third editions of the Marx’ “Civil war in France” etc in relation to the dictatorship of the proletariat. The conclusions Marx and Engels drew from the study and generalization of the experience and lessons of the revolutions was that the working class can acquire political power and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat only through socialist revolution, which destroys the bourgeois state apparatus and creates a new state apparatus. So, we can characteristically refer to the fact that Marx in his work “Critique of the Gotha Programme” stressed that: “Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.”[2]
Lenin highlighted the fundamental importance of this issue for those that understand the existence and determining role of the class struggle in social progress, noting that “particular attention should be paid to Marx’s extremely profound remark that the destruction of the bureaucratic-military state machine is “the precondition for every real people’s revolution””[3] and stressing that “Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat.”[4]
In addition, Lenin sought to describe the characteristics of the communist social-political formation, basic aspects of the socialist state, while severely criticizing right opportunist and anarchist views in relation to the state.
Of course, this specific work of Lenin, and this is true for the rest of the entire titanic collection of his works, cannot be detached from his other works, such as, for example, “The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky”, and always must be approached in a dialectical relationship with the historical developments. In any case, however, the Leninist approach to the state is an enormous legacy for the international communist movement, which must be utilized in a suitable way in order to repel social-democratic and opportunist views about the state, which have penetrated and continue to penetrate the international communist movement. Consequently, the goal of this intervention is not to present the Leninist positions or appropriate quotations from Lenin, but to provide a response based on the Marxist-Leninist understanding of the state to contemporary opportunist views. This is even more relevant today, when many views that Lenin fought against in his era are re-emerging in old and new forms.

The “neutral” non-class understanding of the state.

The forces of European opportunism constitute the basic tool for the further watering down of the communist characteristics of the communist and workers’ parties. These are forces that are vehicles for bourgeois ideology inside the labour movement. In Europe, they have established their own ideological-political and organizational centre; the Party of the European Left (PEL), which some CPs that in the past were deeply influenced by eurocommunism have joined, such as the CPs of France and Spain. SYRIZA participates in it from Greece. This is a party that is contains forces influenced by the eurocommunist current that split from the KKE in 1968, and also forces that split from the KKE in 1991, under the influence of Gorbachev’s “New Thinking”. This party later merged with forces that came from social-democratic PASOK.
This party argues that:”The state, however, is not a fortress but a network, relationship and strategic arena for political struggle. It does not change from one day to the next, but on the contrary its necessary transformation presupposes constant and continuous battles, the involvement of the people, continuous democratization.”[5]
As is apparent from the above, the bourgeois state is not considered by them to constitute by its very nature an organ for the domination of the bourgeois class, but a collection of institutions that can be transformed in a pro-people direction. On the basis of this view, it is argued that the character of the institutions of the bourgeois state, the bourgeois state as a whole, can be suitable shaped as long as “leftwing governments” hold sway.
This is clearly a misleading view, because in practice it detaches the state from its economic base, from the dominant economic relations. It creates illusions amongst the workers that the role of the bourgeois state and its institutions (e.g. parliament, government, army, police) depends on which political force (“left” or “right”) is dominant in them.
Similarly dangerous views are being cultivated today in a number of Latin American countries, through the concept of “progressivism”, through the various “progressive” and “left” governments, which after their electoral victories attempt to sow illusions among the people that the system can change via bourgeois elections and referenda.
In reality, however, there is no class “neutrality” on the part of the bourgeois state and its institutions. The state, as Marxism-Leninism has demonstrated, has a clear class content, which cannot be used via electoral processes and bourgeois governmental solutions in favour of the working class and social change.
 

On the view concerning the “Deep State”.

The emergence of SYRIZA as a governing party in Greece led to the celebrations of many opportunist forces all over the world. Indeed, its cooperation with the nationalist ANEL party in government was interpreted by some as an attempt to control the deep state of Greece via this political governmental alliance.[6] Similarly, some presented the statements of made by A. Tsipras even before the elections, when he directly stated that Greece “belongs to the West” and that Greece’s withdrawal from NATO was not on the agenda, as being a smart move.[7]
What is the aim of this view that separates the functions of the bourgeois state from each other like “salami slices”? Of course, inside the state apparatus of the bourgeois state, there are structures with different functions and tasks. However this does not support the view that separates the state into «hard” and “soft” sections. So, for example, the municipalities, the local services are an integral part of bourgeois administration, as local government is also tasked with implementing the reactionary, anti-people legal framework that is approved by each bourgeois government and parliamentary majority. The communists in our country are active in local government, seek to win the majority in the municipalities and today have achieved this in 5 of the country’s municipalities, which include the 3rd largest city in Greece, Patras. However they do not foster illusions amongst the workers about the character of this section of the bourgeois state. They seek as an opposition or as majority in the administration of the municipalities to utilize their position to develop the class struggle and not to “cleanse” capitalism which is what SYRIZA and other opportunist forces argue for.
These opportunist forces find the separation of the bourgeois state into sections convenient. First of all, because this can conceal that the entire state apparatus, regardless of the different functions of its sections, is in the service of the bourgeois class. Secondly, because in this way they sow the illusion amongst the workers that gradually, beginning from the “periphery” of the bourgeois state and marching to the “centre”, to its “depths”, they can “cleanse” it, transform it into a state that will be pro-people.
Opportunist forces foster similarly utopian views even about the inter-state capitalist unions, such as the imperialist EU. Indeed, they propagandize that via referenda or the emergence of left, social-democratic governments, allegedly a “democratic structure for the continent” can be created with “respect for the democratic, sovereign rights of the peoples»[8]. In reality, these claims deliberately bypass the class character of this inter-state union, which arises from the class character of the bourgeois states that constitute it, and which from its birth, as the “European Community for Coal and Steel” in 1952, had been created for the interests of capital.

The expansion of democracy in the bourgeois state as a “step” to socialism.

Lenin came into sharp conflict with those, like Bernstein, who argued that the reform of capitalism and the gradual reformist transformation of society are possible.
Later, the views of Eurocommunism gained a lot of ground, views which argued that communists can transform the state in a pro-people direction via the parliamentary road and the expansion of democracy.
The KKE, which fought and continues today to fight against these views, has estimated that the similar assessments made by the CPSU did a great deal of damage to the international communist movement. These views came to hold sway in the international communist movement mainly after the 20th Congress of the CPSU and spoke of a “parliamentary transition”[9]. Consequently, we consider views that developed on this basis and argue for the violation of basic principles of socialist revolution and construction to be problematic, e.g. the talk about “a variety of forms of transition to socialism” or the so-called “non-capitalist development path.”
The KKE has drawn conclusions and has rejected the “stages to socialism”, which tormented and continue today to torment the communist movement, as due to these “stages” they on the one hand negate the role of the CP as a force to overthrow capitalism in the name of the “current” tasks in the framework of the system (e.g. the aim of restoring bourgeois democracy in the conditions of dictatorship) and on the other hand they sow illusions about the “parliamentary transition” to socialism.
The KKE studies its history, draws valuable conclusions from the heroic struggles of the communists in the past decades. The CC of the KKE noted amongst other things in its recent statement on the 50th anniversary of the Junta in Greece:”The KKE and the labour-people’s movement seek and struggle to be able to function in the best possible conditions, which will facilitate their struggle and more generally expand their interventions against capital and its power. They struggle for freedoms and rights, in order to remove obstacles to their activity, in order to restrict-as far as possible-state repression.”[10] Nevertheless our party, studying its history, assesses that:”The dictatorship provided new experience that demonstrates the baseless character of the assessment that held sway in the International Communist Movement and the KKE, that the path of struggle for an advanced bourgeois democracy is fertile terrain for the concentration of forces and for approaching the revolutionary process, that the struggle for democracy is dialectically connected to the struggle for socialism. This assessment impeded the party from highlighting the military dictatorship as a form of the dictatorship of capital, impeded the orientation of the people’s struggle as a whole against the enemy-the dictatorship of the bourgeois class and its imperialist alliances, like NATO.”[11]
Today, similar mistaken views are being fostered within the ranks of the communist movement. These are views that either talk of “stages” on the road to socialism or of communists “penetrating” power, with the aim in both cases of expanding democracy, as a first stage to socialism.
In practice, such views postpone the struggle to overthrow of capitalist exploitation to the distant future, trap and restrict the labour movement inside the framework of only struggling for better conditions for the sale of labour power, negating the orientation of the struggle to radicalize the labour movement, to regroup it, to concentrate social forces, which have an interest in confronting the monopolies and can struggle for the overthrow of capitalism and the construction of the new socialist-communist society.

The nationalization of capitalist businesses as a step to change the nature of the state.

Similar confusion exists regarding issues related to the economy. For many years, the international communist movement, which was and to a great extent continues to be trapped in the rationale of stages to socialism, saw the reinforcement of the state sector of the bourgeois state as a step to socialism.
Indeed, today some misunderstand the Leninist position that “state-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs,”[12] in order to justify the active support and participation of communists in bourgeois management with an expanded state sector of the economy. But in this way they mistakenly understand state-monopoly capitalism as being the existence of a strong state sector in the economy and not as imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism, as described by Lenin.
Life has demonstrated that capitalism, in line with its needs, can aim for a large section of a country’s economy to be state-managed. So, for example, in the 1970s and 1980s the largest part of the Greek economy was in the hands of the state, however this did not at all change the character of the bourgeois state. Nor, of course, does it mean that a policy of gradually nationalizing private businesses, which usually means capitalists simply passing on their debts to the state, can lead to a change of its character. As long as power is in the hands of the bourgeois class, the state (with a stronger or weaker state sector) will be bourgeois, and the ruling class will act as the “collective capitalist” of state ownership.

The name of the state as a reflection on how its nature is viewed.

Lenin described the basic aspects of the workers’ state. We cannot close our eyes to Lenin’s analysis and just orient ourselves to the adjectives that accompany the name of a state. Today, for example, the “People’s Republic of Lugansk” and the “People’s Republic of Donetsk” have emerged. What is the character of these self-proclaimed “People’s Republics”? And as an aside to this discussion, we could bear in mind the existence, for example, of the so-called “People’s Republic of Congo”, where small children work in the mines in terrible conditions so that the foreign monopolies can acquire valuable minerals like cobalt and copper.
We assess that we cannot judge a state and our stance towards it exclusively on the basis of how it defines itself and its proclamations. A basic criterion must be which class owns the means production and holds power in the specific state, what kinds of relations of production are predominant in the specific country. And this is because the state for Marxist-Leninists is a “repressive machine”, which in our era objectively, in the 21st century, in the era of the passage from capitalism to socialism, ushered in by the October Revolution, will either be in the hands of the bourgeois class or the working class. There is no middle way!
We must not forget that as always, and today is no exception, the bourgeois classes seek to conceal their goals, to conceal the class character of their state. So, for example, a classic method that the bourgeois class uses to camouflage the state is the projection of its “national” character, presenting its state as a “weapon” to defend the entire nation. Today the bourgeois do not hesitate to also utilize other propaganda “weapons” in order to subordinate the labour movement “under their banners». The communists, the labour movement as a whole, must demonstrate a high level of vigilance when bourgeois politicians, who contributed to capitalist restoration in the former USSR, today utilize the anti-fascist “card”.
Today, when the bourgeois class is also reinforcing fascist forces, some of which even seek to play a role in government, such as, for example, in Ukraine, the appeals for new “anti-fascist fronts” and for alliances even with bourgeois political forces, and even bourgeois states that appear with an anti-fascist mantle, are intensifying. However, as the KKE assessed in the Declaration of the CC of the KKE on the 70 years since the end of the 2nd World Imperialist War and the great anti-fascist victory of the peoples:”The reactionary bourgeois state is neither willing nor able to tackle Nazism root and branch; neither can the so called “antifascist fronts”, an alliance of the labour-people’s movement in cooperation with bourgeois political forces.  Only the people’s alliance, the development of the class struggle with the aim of overthrowing the monopolies’ power, the capitalist system can deal with Nazism.”[13]
In addition, the KKE assesses that today the goal of workers’ power must not be pushed aside by another governmental goal on the terrain of capitalism, in the name of the deterioration of the situation of the working class and popular strata, due to the deep and prolonged economic crisis, imperialist war, open terror against the CP and the labour movement by Nazi-fascist organizations, provocations, the intensification of state violence.[14]
 

Socialist construction and the state under socialism.

For decades, social-democrats and opportunists have been carrying out, amongst other things, a systematic effort to negate every scientific approach to socialism and its state. We read, for example, in the material of the opportunist centre of Europe, the PEL, that it defends the “perspective of a democratic socialism». And this “socialist perspective” is defined by the PEL as “a society of justice founded on the pooling of wealth and the means of production, and on the sovereignty of democratic choice, in harmony with the planet’s limited resources.”Similar confusion and anti-Marxist approaches of the socialist society have multiplied in recent years with the various “socialisms” of Latin America. From the “Socialism of the 21st Century” of Chavez to the “socialism of buen vivir” in Ecuador, where the US dollar is used as the national currency.
They aim for us to ignore the fact that at the base of every socio-economic formation is a specific mode of production, which is the dialectical unity of the forces of production and the relations of production. The relations of production as whole in every phase of the process of reproduction-production, distribution, exchange, consumption- constitute the economic base of society. Approaching this issue scientifically, Lenin underscored that:”In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.[15]
J.V. Stalin noted: “There are two types of production: the capitalist, including the state-capitalist, type, where there are two classes, where production is carried on for the profit of the capitalist; and there is the other type, the socialist type of production, where there is no exploitation, where the means of production belong to the working class, and where the enterprises are run not for the profit of an alien class, but for the expansion of industry in the interests of the workers as a whole.”[16]
This is why the KKE rejects various interpretations of socialism, which have nothing to do with the Marxist-Leninist view, and as it has often stressed in relation to the views of the PEL, or the various “socialisms” of Latin America, that what we have in essence is the promotion of opportunist positions about the “humanization” of capitalism, “ the utopia about the democratization of the bourgeois state, while the “mixed” capitalist economy is being presented as being a new model of socialism. “The logic of national specificities constituted the instrument of “eurocommunism” in order to deny the scientific laws of socialist revolution and construction and today the problem manifests itself with the same or similar arguments.(…) in order to substantiate the substitution of the revolutionary path with parliamentarianism, the relegation of socialism into governmental changes which will manage bourgeois society, as, for example, the Sao Paolo Forum and other forces do. The construction of socialism is a unified process, which begins with the conquest of power by the working class in order to form the new mode of production, which will prevail with the complete abolition of capitalist relations, the capital-wage labour relations. The socialization of the means of production and central planning are laws of socialist construction, necessary conditions for the satisfaction of the people’s needs.”[17]
The KKE, studying the experience of socialist construction assessed the 1965 economic reforms in the USSR as being mistaken. These were reforms that gave priority to “market reforms” and brought back the role of profit to the socialist economy. As a result vested interests emerged in the enterprises, which were not always in harmony with the interests of society. The mistaken reforms in the economy were combined with similar mistaken directions in the political superstructure (e.g. the All-people’s state) and in the strategy of the international communist movement (e.g. policy of “peaceful coexistence”).Of course, our party disagrees with the assessments of CPs, which were pulled into the damaging current of “Maoism” and which considered that from one moment to the next, immediately after the 20th Congress, the workers’ state ceased to exist or indeed that it was allegedly transformed into “social-imperialism” and in this way they participated in the anti-soviet propaganda. In contrast, our party, which defends the contribution of the USSR as the international communist and workers’ movement did, considers that socialism was constructed in the USSR. However, it also considers that the 20th Congress of the CPSU was a turning point, because a number of opportunist positions were adopted on issues related to the economy, the strategy of the communist movement and international relations.
Today, we evaluate that 30 years after the counterrevolution in the USSR, Central and Eastern Europe, the capitalization of China has advanced. Capitalist relations of production hold sway there. At the same time we observe the continuing reinforcement of capitalist relations in countries that sought socialist construction, such as Vietnam and Cuba.[18]
Some comrades from other CPs argue that the developments in these countries are reminiscent of the NEP in Lenin’s era. In other texts[19], we have highlighted the differences between the NEP and the changes taking place in these countries and the results of which our party is concerned about, based in its long study of the experience of the USSR. And this is because the socialization of the concentrated means of production, central planning in the distribution of labour power and the means of production, the eradication of the exploitation of man by man for the majority of workers are basic and necessary conditions, not only for the beginning of socialist construction, but also for its continuation.
In addition, as Lenin had noted that:”the dictatorship of the proletariat is not only the use of force against the exploiters, and not even mainly the use of force. The economic foundation of this use of revolutionary force, the guarantee of its effectiveness and success is the fact that the proletariat represents and creates a higher type of social organization of labour compared with capitalism. This is what is important, this is the source of the strength and the guarantee that the final triumph of communism is inevitable.”[20] It is clear that this “higher type of social organization” can have nothing to do with nepotism. As was noted in the Report of the CC of the KKE to the 20th Congress of the party “North Korea has proceeded to reinforcing the so-called “free economic zones”, the “market». The Workers’ Party of Korea has for some years relinquished Marxism-Leninism and promotes the idealist “Juche” theory, speaks of “Kimilsungism-Kimjongunism”, violating every concept of socialist democracy,  workers’-people’s control, in a regime of nepotism.”[21]

Instead of an epilogue: We must close the “loopholes” of the 2nd International.

The KKE carried out a deep study of the causes that led to the overthrow of socialism in the USSR, following the path of many years of inner-party study and discussion and devoting its 18th Congress (in 2009) in order to provide comprehensive answers on this issue, drawing valuable conclusions for the future. On the basis of this effort, grounded in Marxism-Leninism, our party enriched its programmatic understanding of socialism, something that is reflected in the new Programme adopted at the 19th Congress (2013).
 
The Programme of the KKE notes amongst other things:The socialist power is the revolutionary power of the working class, the dictatorship of the proletariat. The working class power will replace all the bourgeois institutions, which will be smashed by the revolutionary activity, with new institutions that will be created by the people.”[22]
In addition, the Programme of the KKE describes in detail:
  • The material basis of the necessity of socialism in Greece
  • The duties of the KKE for the socialist revolution
  •  Its duties more specifically on the revolutionary situation
  • The leading role of the Party in the revolution
  •  Socialism as the first, lowest phase of communism
  • The issue of the satisfaction of the social needs
  • Fundamental principles of the formation of the socialist power
The 20th Congress of the KKE, which was held this year, on the 30th of March-2nd April 2017, posed the task of the comprehensive ideological-political-organizational steeling of the party and its youth as a party for the revolutionary overthrow.
100 years ago, at the end of his work “State of Revolution”, V. I. Lenin noted that the 2nd International had spiraled into opportunism, that the experience of the Commune was forgotten and distorted and he added that:” Far from inculcating in the workers’ minds the idea that the time is nearing when they must act to smash the old state machine, replace it by a new one, and in this way make their political rule the foundation for the socialist reorganization of society, they have actually preached to the masses the very opposite and have depicted the “conquest of power” in a way that has left thousands of loopholes for opportunism.”[23]
Today, 100 years after the Great October Revolution and a year before the 100th anniversary of the founding of our party, the KKE seeks with its positions and activity to bar the “doors and windows” to opportunism. This is a precondition for the realization of the ideals of a society without the exploitation of man by man.
 

[1] “State and Revolution”, V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, V. 25
[2] “Critique of the Gotha Programme”, K. Marx
[3] “State and Revolution”, V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, V.25
[4] “State and Revolution”, V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, V.25
[5]From SYRIZA’s governmental programme.
[6] The Real News Network, Interview (28/1/2015) with Leo Panitch, Professor of Political Science at York University, Toronto, Canada. http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=13071&updaterx=2015-01-28+01%3A16%3A04
[7] Article of Paul Mason (1/9/2015), former BBC journalist and former economics editor for Channel 4 News.http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/paul-mason-what-unites-the-new-movements-of-the-left-1.2335322
[8] 5th Congress of the PEL. Political Document: “Refound Europe, create new progressive convergence”
[10] “Statement of the CC of the KKE on the Military Coup of the 21st of April 1967. “Rizospastis”, 5 March 2017.
[11] Ibid
[12] “The impending catastrophe and how to combat it”, V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, V.25
[14] ibid
[15]  “Karl Marx”, V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, V.21
[16]J.V. Stalin, Works, V. 7
[20] “A great beginning”, V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, V. 29
[21]Report of the CC of the KKE to the 20th Congress of the party, March 2017.
[23] «State and Revolution”, V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, V. 25.
Kemal Okuyan: “Turkey does not have any other choice. We need socialism as we need air and water” (Interview with TKP’s First Secretary)

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Kemal Okuyan: “Turkey does not have any other choice. We need socialism as we need air and water” (Interview with TKP’s First Secretary)

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2017/04/kemal-okuyan-turkey-does-not-have-any.html
The interview by soL news portal with Kemal Okuyan, First Secretary of the CC of TKP (Communist Party of Turkey), on the results of the 16 April referendum in Turkey.
Source: International Communist Press, 17 April 2017.
soL: What can you say right away about the results of the referendum?
KO: We cannot talk about an arithmetical result. They did something they are good at, and they have stolen the results. Our logic, our mind and conscience tell us that ‘No’ won in arithmetic terms, too. 
Yet, there are other results. First of all, we see all they could muster despite all their repression, exploitation of public resources, and fraud; the picture speaks for itself. We saw that in reality their followers do not add up to more than 40 percent of the population in Turkey.

And still more importantly, the resistance in big cities increased rather than decreased. Istanbul and Ankara have been added to Izmir. We should also count Adana, Mersin, Diyarbakır, Antalya, Denizli, Aydın, and Eskişehir. With this picture you cannot change the constitution whatsoever. You only think you can. 

soL: Before coming to that matter, let’s talk about fraud. Did they really have a big impact on the election?
KO: If we take into account all violations as a whole, yes of course they did. Why don’t we call utilization of all public resources in favor of ‘Yes’ a fraud? The media lies, are not those fraud? The threats, the terrorization, aren’t those fraud? They limited the number of parties eligible to participate in the elections, decreasing the number of ballot observers, isn’t this a fraud? To all that, add what they did on the day of referendum. Missing ballot papers, unsealed ballot papers, images of people casting ‘Yes’ outside the voting cabins, even on the streets, thousands of people shamelessly showing off photos of their votes for ‘Yes’, photos of group of people standing all at once in the same cabin, unlawful interventions by the police and the gendarmerie, repeated voting, and finally the decision of the Supreme Committee of Election to accept unsealed ballot papers. When you take into account all this as a whole, the referendum is wallowed in mud. 
soL: Can anything be done about it?
KO: The people should respond. Yet, there is the Republican People’s Party (CHP), which stands as a barrier in front of the people’s reactions, a party which people still have faith in. Erdoğan should once again thank Kılıçdaroğlu, the leader of CHP.
soL: What can CHP really do?
KO: CHP cannot do anything. They cannot; but we are the ones who know that. The mass base of CHP constantly get their hopes up, “maybe this time…”, and choose to wait. Each time, CHP very successfully fulfills the task of soothing the anger and the energy of the masses. Before the referendum, we were saying that there were CHP cadre who wished for a ‘Yes’ result with a slight margin. Those cadre also include Kılıçdaroğlu, the leader of CHP.
soL: How can you be so sure?
KO: First of all, Kılıçdaroğlu was not ready for a ‘No’ result. What was he going to do if ‘No’ succeeded? The government would not accept the result and there would be a lot of tension… All along the referendum process, Kılıçdaroğlu did nothing but preached for ‘consensus’. There is nothing about ‘power’ here. Secondly, and most importantly, we should not forget that ‘Yes’ was the result aspired by a large section of the big capital and international monopolies. It is the bosses who have been advocating for the presidential system for years. We know that the imperialist centers also pushed for a system with strengthened executive powers. The only problem is the extremism and rash manners of Erdoğan. A ‘Yes’ with a narrow margin would have restrained Erdoğan on the one hand, and keep in force a ‘program’ with a wide space for maneuver for the capital on the other hand. They achieved what they desired. This is the personal mission of Kılıçdaroğlu for years.
soL: Then, will this lead to some relief? I mean, if this was what they wanted… 
KO: No. This is because the contradictions within the imperialist system have reached serious levels and Turkey is standing on a crucial juncture of those contradictions. On the one hand, Erdoğan is extending his political life exploiting these contradictions, and on the other hand, this continuously means new mines on Erdoğan’s path. There is no room for stability in this picture. Nor the internal dynamics of Turkey can produce stability. Erdoğan is an unbearable burder for Turkey. Culturally, ideologically, politically, and economically… And there is another fact that is slowly surfacing: the working classes of Turkey cannot withstand Erdoğan and his mentality. No matter what Kılıçdaroğlu does…
soL: What will happen then?
KO: The status quo in the Turkish political order has been shaken as of yesterday. There are serious problems in AKP. Let’s say they knew they had already lost Izmir; but a government party that has also lost Ankara and Istanbul… If the results had been a little bit worse, Erdoğan would not have had any choice but to rush to take up the presidency of AKP. 
CHP never ceases to have problems anyway. In all these years I have never met a CHP member who is happy with CHP.  There, the discussion never ends. 
And now there is a new reality in the Turkish bourgeois politics: Akşener. Her team will eat into AKP as Erdoğan and AKP face difficulties. This team has already become the representative of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). They will also attract the attention of the discontented in CHP. We know that there are preparations and dialogue for the construction of a new ‘center’. 
The other party in the parliament, People’s Democratic Party (HDP), showed that it has been able to successfully consolidate its grassroots despite all the repression. 
soL: So, what should we expect in politics: recovery or disintegration?
KO: For recovery, disintegration is needed first. However, at this moment Turkey seems far from such episodic classifications; ambiguities increase each day in the country. Especially in this world! This is why we argued that the referendum alone would not be able to determine everything at once. 
soL: That is where I was trying to get to. TKP said, “Continue the struggle whethre the result is ‘Yes’ or ‘No’”. After the referendum, can we attach new meanings to this perspective?
KO: TKP said so because if ‘No’ had succeeded, this would have been a big achievement, a step forward that would lead to positive results but it would never have been a solution in itself. There was not even a level of organization to protect the ‘No’ votes. And actually this was confirmed. Mathematically we know that more than half of the voters in Turkey voted for ‘No’. Yet, the party in power stole them and the response was no more than a few very valuable but weak actions. We also said, ‘Yes’ would not be the end of the world. Now is it the end of the world? Do we now have to pack and leave? No way! TKP was and still is calling for immediate escalation of organized struggle. Yet, on a different basis…
soL: What is that basis? 
KO: TKP is a party that defends enlightenment, secularism and the Republic against religious fundamentalism. Without any hesitation and from the beginning… And today in Turkey, the majority of the ‘No’ votes are centered on secularism, although not all of them. However, there is a clear fact in Turkey: the deadlock in Turkey cannot be solved through the polarization between secularism and religious fundamentalism. Secularism alone cannot push back religious fundamentalism, and vice versa. What they want is to reconcile these two poles and strengthen the transitive area in between. This would actually mean the triumph of religious fundamentalism. Just as ‘moderate Islam’ is an imperialist fabrication, there is nothing such as moderate Enlightenment or moderate secularism. Yet, the gang of bosses still wants that. This would be the defeat of the society in Turkey. The deadlock can only be resolved by a class-based polarization. Secularism also needs that. 
TKP is primarily a class party; we fight for the emancipation of the working class and we affirm that emancipation of the working class is the emancipation of the whole society. Here we do not pit secularism against working class struggle, the struggle for socialism. We just say: in this bourgeois world, in this capitalist order, forget about secularism; what you will find is its caricature.
soL: So, you mean without class-based politics, secularism cannot get the upper hand against religious fundamentalism. Then, Turkey will not be able to overcome this deadlock in the short term. Is that true?
KO: No, it won’t. However, in countries like Turkey, it is difficult to say what is the short term and what is the long term. Imperialism is in crisis. And the capitalist order in Turkey is on the brink of a very serious economic crisis. Lack of organization in such a period is fatal. We insist in our call. The people in Turkey should be organized. And secular sectors should leave behind the heedlessness, “We don’t mind the exploitation and injustices continuing as long as they don’t mess with our raki (an alcoholic beverage) or the length of our skirt”; there is no other choice.
soL: Can the pro-‘No’ sector go through such a transformation?
KO: Look, in a sense, the referendum is behind us. The result is illegitimate; this is an indisputable fact. But from now on, people should raise their heads from the ballot box and focus on the realities of life. This society is unorganized. We are unorganized in factories, in offices, in schools, in neighborhoods. Then, you cannot protect your votes either. It is not enough to sing the Anthem of Izmir. Those who are satisfied with this capitalist order but do not want to lose secularism will have to take care of themselves on their own if they remain satisfied with the system; they do not have the right to complain. However, the majority of the voters of ‘No’ are workers. We should start understanding that it was the bourgeois class who placed dynamites in the foundations of secularism in Turkey, and that what we call imperialism is an order of monopolies. And there is no way to deal with it unless you are organized.
soL: Do we need to address the pro-‘No’ sector only?
KO: Primarily yes. This is the only way to be able to extend hand to the working people in the social basis of AKP. If ‘No’ loses energy, if its self-confidence gets weaker, if the atmosphere of defeat becomes prevalent, nothing can be changed in this country. No one can be convinced. And there is only one single way to infuse energy and identity to ‘No’: giving it the color of the working class. This is not a mathematical operation but a political one. The day one tenth of the voters of ‘No’ take such an organized stance, everything will change. And nobody will be able to steal it! Neither the governing party, nor the official ‘AA’ new agency, nor the Supreme Committee of Election!
soL: Do you believe that such organization will be possible in the near future?
KO: This country does not have any other choice. TKP will make the utmost effort. We need socialism as we need air and water. We are in favorable conditions to explain this, we are in favorable conditions to get people to understand it, we are in favorable conditions to organize it. The idea of Republic also needs socialism. Turkey cannot bear Erdoğan and capitalism cannot bear the Republic. Then what? 
soL: Finally, what would you like to say?
KO: Before and on the day of the referendum many people worked for a ‘No’ outcome with great sincerity and self-sacrifice. These people are the honor of this country. Nobody should regret that all those efforts went for nothing. Nothing is in vain. Yesterday a very important lesson was learnt. If you are unorganized, you are nothing. If we fulfill the requirements of that lesson, there is nothing to be pessimistic about.

* * * 


Türkiye şaibelerle dolu bir oylama sürecini daha geride bıraktı… Gelinen tabloyu Türkiye Komünist Partisi (TKP) Merkez Komite Üyesi Kemal Okuyan’a sorduk.
 
soL’un sorularını yanıtlayan Kemal Okuyan, “Bu tabloyla anayasa filan değiştiremezsiniz. Değiştirdiğinizi sanırsınız. Türkiye Erdoğan’ı taşımıyor. Kültürel açıdan, ideolojik açıdan, siyasi açıdan, ekonomik açıdan… Yavaş yavaş ortaya çıkan bir gerçek daha var, Türkiye’nin emekçi sınıfları da Erdoğan’ı ve onun zihniyetini taşıyamaz” dedi. 
 
TKP’nin “Evet de çıksa hayır da çıksa mücadeleye devam” kararlılığını da vurgulayan Okuyan, “Başka çaresi yok bu ülkenin. TKP elinden geleni yapacak. Sosyalizm hava kadar, su kadar açık bir gereksinim. Bunu anlatmak için koşullar uygun, bunun anlaşılması için koşullar uygun, bunun örgütlenmesi için koşullar uygun. Cumhuriyet düşüncesinin de sosyalizme ihtiyacı var. Türkiye Erdoğan’ı, kapitalizm de cumhuriyeti taşıyamıyor” diye konuştu.
 
Referandum sonuçlarına ilişkin ilk başta, hemen ne söylenebilir?
 
Ortada matematiksel bir sonuç yok. İyi bildikleri bir şeyi yaparak, o sonucu çaldılar. Elimizde bir sonuç bulunmuyor. Mantık, akıl ve vicdanımız ise “hayır”ın matematiksel olarak da kazandığını söylüyor. Ancak başka sonuçlar da var. Bir kere, bu kadar baskıya, devlet olanağına, hileye rağmen çıkartabildikleri tablo ortada. Gerçekte Türkiye’nin yüzde 40’ı diyebiliriz, bu iktidarın peşinden gidenlerin oranı için. Bundan daha önemlisi, büyük kentlerdeki direncin azalmayıp artmasıdır. İzmir’e, İstanbul ve Ankara da eklendi. Adana, Mersin, Diyarbakır, Antalya’yı da hesaba katın. Denizli, Aydın, Eskişehir’i… Bu tabloyla anayasa filan değiştiremezsiniz. Değiştirdiğinizi sanırsınız.
 
Oraya geçmeden, seçim hilelerinden söz edelim. Gerçekten büyük bir etkisi var mı seçim hilesinin?
 
Bir bütün olarak tüm ihlalleri alırsak elbette var. Devletin bütün olanaklarının “evet” için kullanılmasına neden hile demiyoruz? Medya yalanları hile değil mi? Tehditler, estirilen terör hile değil mi? Seçimlere katılmaya hak kazanan partilerin sayısını düşürüp sandık gözlemcilerini azaltmak hile değil mi? Bunların üstüne referandum günü yapılanları ekleyin. Eksik pusulalar, mühürsüz pusulalar, dışarıda eğlene eğlene “evet”e mühür basma görüntüleri, “evet” tercihini arsızca teşhir eden binlerce kişi, oy kabinine iki-üç kişi girmeler, polis ve jandarmanın hukuksuz müdahaleleri, mükerrer oy kullanımı ve en sonunda mühürsüz oy pusulasının kabul edileceğine dair YSK açıklaması… Bunu bir bütün olarak aldığınızda her tarafı çamur bu referandumun!
 
Peki buna karşı bir şey yapılamaz mı?
 
Halkın tepki vermesi gerek. Ancak halkın o tepkisinin önünde duran, hâlâ insanların ümit beslediği bir CHP var. Erdoğan bir kez daha Kılıçdaroğlu’na teşekkür etsin. 
 
CHP ne yapabilir ki?
 
CHP bir şey yapamaz. Yapamaz ama bunu biz biliyoruz. CHP tabanı sürekli “bu kez acaba…” diye umutlanıyor ve bekliyor. Her defasında biriken öfke ve enerjiyi yatıştırma görevini büyük bir başarıyla yerine getiriyor CHP… Seçim öncesinde CHP yönetiminde az farkla “evet” çıkmasını isteyenler olduğunu konuşuyorduk. Bunlar arasında Kılıçdaroğlu da var.
 
Nasıl bu kadar kesin konuşabiliyorsunuz?
 
“Hayır”a hazır değildi Kılıçdaroğlu, bu bir… Ne yapacak “hayır” çıkınca. Hükümet kabul etmeyecek, bir sürü gerginlik… Bütün referandum kampanyası boyunca Kılıçdaroğlu “uzlaşma” demekten başka bir şey yapmadı. Burada “iktidar” yok. İkincisi ve asıl önemlisi, bu sonucun hem büyük sermaye, hem uluslararası tekellerin ağırlıklı kesiminin istediği bir sonuç olduğunu unutmayalım. Başkanlık sistemini yıllardır pişiren önde gelen patronlarımızdır. Emperyalist merkezlerin de, yürütmenin güçlendirilmesine yarayacak bir sistem için çaba harcadıklarını biliyoruz. Dertleri Erdoğan’ın aşırılıkları, başına buyrukluklarıdır. Az farkla çıkan “evet” bir yandan Erdoğan’ın elini kolunu bağlayacak, diğer yandan da sermayenin hareket alanının alabildiğine geniş olduğu bir “programı” yürülükte tutacaktı. İstenen oldu. Kılıçdaroğlu’nun kişisel misyonu yıllardır budur.
 
Peki bu bir rahatlama getirir mi? Yani eğer istedikleri olduysa…
 
Getirmez. Çünkü emperyalist sistem içi çelişkiler, çok ciddi boyutlarda ve Türkiye bu çelişkilerin düğüm noktalarından birinde. Erdoğan bir yandan bu çelişkileri kullanarak siyasi ömrünü uzatıyor ama öte yandan bu çelişkiler Erdoğan için sürekli yeni mayınlar döşenmesi demek. Buradan istikrar çıkmaz. Türkiye’nin iç dinamiklerinden de istikrar çıkmaz. Türkiye Erdoğan’ı taşımıyor. Kültürel açıdan, ideolojik açıdan, siyasi açıdan, ekonomik açıdan… Yavaş yavaş ortaya çıkan bir gerçek daha var, Türkiye’nin emekçi sınıfları da Erdoğan’ı ve onun zihniyetini taşıyamaz. Kılıçdaroğlu ağzıyla kuş tutsa taşıyamaz.
 
Peki ne olacak?
 
Bir kere düzen siyasetinde taşlar dün itibariyle yerinden oynadı. AKP’de büyük sorun var. Hadi İzmir zaten malum, üstüne Ankara ve İstanbul’u kaybeden bir iktidar partisi. Sonuçlar biraz daha gerileseydi, Erdoğan’ın hemen ertesi gün apar topar AKP’nin başına geçmek dışında seçeneği kalmayacaktı. CHP’de zaten her daim sorun var. Ben yıllardır CHP’den memnun olan tek bir CHP’liye rastlamadım. Orada tartışma devam eder. Sonra düzen siyasetinde artık bir Akşener gerçeği var. Erdoğan ve AKP zorlandıkça, AKP’yi kemirirler. MHP’yi temsil yetkisini de eline aldı bu ekip. Üstüne CHP tabanındaki hoşnutsuzların da ilgisini çekecektir. Zaten yeni bir “merkez” inşası doğrultusunda hazırlıklar ve temaslar olduğunu biliyoruz. Parlamentodaki bir diğer parti HDP ise onca baskıya rağmen kendi tabanını önemli ölçüde konsolide edebildiğini gösterdi.
 
Bir toparlanma mı, dağılma mı beklenmeli siyasette?
 
Toparlanma için önce dağılma gerekir. Ancak şu anda Türkiye bu tür dönemsel tasniflerden çok, belirsizliğin her geçen gün daha da artttığı bir ülkedir. Hele bu dünyada! Referandumun hiçbir şeyi tek başına belirlemeyeceğini söylememiz biraz da bu yüzdendi.
 
Oraya gelecektim. TKP “Evet de çıksa hayır da çıksa mücadeleye devam” diyordu. 
Referandum sonrasında bu değerlendirmeye yeni bir anlam yüklenebilir mi?
 
TKP böyle diyordu çünkü “hayır” çıksa, bu büyük bir başarı, olumlu sonuçlar yaratacak bir gelişme olurdu ama kendi başına asla bir çözüm olmazdı. “Hayır”lara sahip çıkacak bir örgütlülük bile yoktu ortada. Ve aslında bu doğrulandı. Matematiksel olarak Türkiye’de seçmenin yarıdan fazlasının “hayır” dediğini biliyoruz. Ama iktidar çalıyor o sonucu ve toplama bakıldığında son derece değerli ama cılız Boyun Eğme’yen tepkilerden ibaret hırsızlığa verilen yanıt. “Evet çıkarsa da dünyanın sonu değil” diyorduk. Şimdi dünyanın sonu mu geldi? Tası tarağı toplamamız mı gerekiyor? Hadi canım! TKP, örgütlü mücadelenin hızla yükselmesi için bir çağrı yapıyordu, yapıyor… Ama farklı bir zeminde.
 
Nedir o zemin? 
 
TKP gericiliğe karşı aydınlanmacılığı, laikliği, cumhuriyeti savunan bir parti. Hiç tereddütsüz ve başından beri. Türkiye’de de şu anda “hayır”ların tamamında değil ama merkezinde de laiklik duruyor. Ancak ortada çok açık bir gerçek var. Türkiye’deki kilitlenmeyi laiklik-gericilik kutuplaşması çözemez. Laiklik gericiliği, gericilik laikliği kendi başlarına geriletemezler. Bu kutupları uzlaştırmak, onların arasındaki geçişken alanı güçlendirmek istiyorlar. Bu aslında gericiliğin kazanması demek. “Ilımlı İslam” nasıl bir emperyalist uydurmasıysa, “ılımlı aydınlanma”, “ılımlı laiklik” de artık olmaz. Ama yine de bunu istiyor patron tayfası. Bu, Türkiye toplumunun yenilgisi olur. Kilitlenmeyi sınıf ekseninde bir taraflaşma çözer ancak. Laikliğin de buna gereksinimi var. TKP her şeyden önce bir sınıf partisi, işçi sınıfının kurtuluşu için mücadele ediyor ve işçi sınıfının kurtuluşu bütün toplumun kurtuluşudur diyor. Burada laiklikle işçi sınıfının mücadelesini, sosyalizm mücadelesini karşı karşıya koymuyoruz, sadece şunu diyoruz: Burjuva dünyasında, bu düzende laikliği unutun. Onun karikatürüne talim edersiniz. 
 
Laiklikle gericiliğin birbirine bu şekilde üstünlük sağlayamayacağını söylüyorsunuz. O halde kısa erimde Türkiye bu kilitlenmeyi aşamaz mı?
 
Aşamaz. Ancak Türkiye gibi ülkelerde kısa zaman dilimi nedir, uzun zaman dilimi nedir bu biraz karışık. Emperyalizm krizde. Türkiye’de de düzen çok ciddi bir ekonomik krizin eşiğinde. Bu tabloda emekçi halkın eli kolu bağlı durmayacağı açık. Lakin örgütsüzlük böyle bir dönemde ölümdür. Çağrımızda ısrarlıyız. Türkiye’de halk örgütlenmelidir. Laik duyarlılığı olan kesimler ise “sömürü olsun, adaletsizlikler sürsün ama rakımıza, eteğimize kimse karışmasın” aymazlığından çıkacak, başka çaresi yok.
 
“Hayır”cı kesim böyle bir dönüşüm yaşayabilir mi?
 
Bakın referandum bir açıdan geride kaldı. Sonuç meşru değil, bu tartışılamayacak gerçek. Ancak şimdi insanlar kafalarını sandıktan kaldırıp hayatın gerçeklerine odaklanmalı. Bu toplum örgütsüz. Fabrikada örgütsüz, ofiste örgütsüz, okulda örgütsüz, mahallede örgütsüz. E o zaman oylarını da koruyamazsın. İzmir Marşı yetmiyor. Bu düzenden memnun olan ama “laiklik elden gitmesin” diyenler eğer bunda inat edeceklerse kendi başlarının çaresine bakacaklar ve şikayet etmeyecekler. Ancak Hayır diyenlerin önemli bir oranı emekçidir. Türkiye’de laikliğin temellerine dinamiti sermaye sınıfının yerleştirdiğini, emperyalizm emperyalizm denen şeyin de tekellerin düzeni olduğunu anlayarak işe başlanabilir. Bununla örgütsüz baş edilemez. 
 
Sadece “hayır”cı kesime mi hitap edilmeli?
 
Öncelikli olarak evet. AKP tabanındaki emekçi insanlara el uzatmanın yolu da bu. “Hayır”daki enerji yok olursa, orada özgüven azalırsa, yenilgi havası yaygınlaşırsa bu ülkede hiçbir şey olmaz. İkna edemezsiniz. “Hayır”lara enerji ve kişilik aşılamanın da tek yolu var: Ona işçi sınıfının rengini vermek. Bu matematiksel bir işlem değil, siyasal bir işlem. Türkiye’de “hayır”ların onda biri böyle bir örgütlülüğe yerleşsin, her şey değişir. Üstelik bunu ne iktidar, ne Anadolu Ajansı, ne YSK çalabilir!
 
Böyle bir örgütlülüğü yakın gelecekte olası görüyor musunuz?
 
Başka çaresi yok bu ülkenin. TKP elinden geleni yapacak. Sosyalizm hava kadar, su kadar açık bir gereksinim. Bunu anlatmak için koşullar uygun, bunun anlaşılması için koşullar uygun, bunun örgütlenmesi için koşullar uygun. Cumhuriyet düşüncesinin de sosyalizme ihtiyacı var. Türkiye Erdoğan’ı, kapitalizm de cumhuriyeti taşıyamıyor. O halde? 
 
Son olarak ne söylemek istersiniz?
 
Referandum günü ve öncesinde birçok kişi büyük bir samimiyetle, fedakarlıkla “hayır”lar için çalıştı. Ülkenin onurudur bu insanlar. Bu emeğin boşa gittiğini düşünerek kimse hayıflanmasın. Hiçbir şey boşa değildir. Çok önemli bir ders çıkarıldı dün: Örgütsüzsen hiçbir şeysin. Bu dersin gerekleri yerine getirilirse, enseyi karartmak için bir neden bulunmamaktadır. 
V.I.Lenin- The Tasks of the Proletariat in the Present Revolution (The April Theses)

Monday, April 17, 2017

V.I.Lenin- The Tasks of the Proletariat in the Present Revolution (The April Theses)

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2017/04/vilenin-tasks-of-proletariat-in-present.html#more

Vladimir I. Lenin – The Tasks of the Proletariat in the Present Revolution (“The April Theses”).
Published on April 7, 1917 in Pravda No. 26.
Source: Lenin’s Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1964, Moscow, Volume 24, pp. 19-26. via Marxists Internet Archives.
 
I did not arrive in Petrograd until the night of April 3, and therefore at the meeting on April 4, I could, of course, deliver the report on the tasks of the revolutionary proletariat only on my own behalf, and with reservations as to insufficient preparation.
 
The only thing I could do to make things easier for myself—and for honest opponents—was to prepare the theses in writing. I read them out, and gave the text to Comrade Tsereteli. I read them twice very slowly: first at a meeting of Bolsheviks and then at a meeting of both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks.
 
I publish these personal theses of mine with only the briefest explanatory notes, which were developed in far greater detail in the report.
THESES
 
1. In our attitude towards the war, which under the new [provisional] government of Lvov and Co. unquestionably remains on Russia’s part a predatory imperialist war owing to the capitalist nature of that government, not the slightest concession to “revolutionary defencism” is permissible.
 
The class-conscious proletariat can give its consent to a revolutionary war, which would really justify revolutionary defencism, only on condition: (a) that the power pass to the proletariat and the poorest sections of the peasants aligned with the proletariat; (b) that all annexations be renounced in deed and not in word; (c) that a complete break be effected in actual fact with all capitalist interests.
 
In view of the undoubted honesty of those broad sections of the mass believers in revolutionary defencism who accept the war only as a necessity, and not as a means of conquest, in view of the fact that they are being deceived by the bourgeoisie, it is necessary with particular thoroughness, persistence and patience to explain their error to them, to explain the inseparable connection existing between capital and the imperialist war, and to prove that without overthrowing capital it is impossible to end the war by a truly democratic peace, a peace not imposed by violence.
 
The most widespread campaign for this view must be organised in the army at the front.
 
Fraternisation.  
 
2. The specific feature of the present situation in Russia is that the country is passing from the first stage of the revolution—which, owing to the insufficient class-consciousness and organisation of the proletariat, placed power in the hands of the bourgeoisie—to its second stage, which must place power in the hands of the proletariat and the poorest sections of the peasants.
 
This transition is characterised, on the one hand, by a maximum of legally recognised rights (Russia is now the freest of all the belligerent countries in the world); on the other, by the absence of violence towards the masses, and, finally, by their unreasoning trust in the government of capitalists, those worst enemies of peace and socialism.
 
This peculiar situation demands of us an ability to adapt ourselves to the special conditions of Party work among unprecedentedly large masses of proletarians who have just awakened to political life.
 
3. No support for the Provisional Government; the utter falsity of all its promises should be made clear, particularly of those relating to the renunciation of annexations. Exposure in place of the impermissible, illusion-breeding “demand” that this government, a government of capitalists, should cease to be an imperialist government. 
 
4. Recognition of the fact that in most of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies our Party is in a minority, so far a small minority, as against a bloc of all the petty-bourgeois opportunist elements, from the Popular Socialists and the Socialist-Revolutionaries down to the Organising Committee (Chkheidze, Tsereteli, etc.), Steklov, etc., etc., who have yielded to the influence of the bourgeoisie and spread that influence among the proletariat.
 
The masses must be made to see that the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies are the only possible form of revolutionary government, and that therefore our task is, as long as this government yields to the influence of the bourgeoisie, to present a patient, systematic, and persistent explanation of the errors of their tactics, an explanation especially adapted to the practical needs of the masses.
 
As long as we are in the minority we carry on the work of criticising and exposing errors and at the same time we preach the necessity of transferring the entire state power to the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies, so that the people may overcome their mistakes by experience.
 
5. Not a parliamentary republic—to return to a parliamentary republic from the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies would be a retrograde step—but a republic of Soviets of Workers’, Agricultural Labourers’ and Peasants’ Deputies throughout the country, from top to bottom.
 
Abolition of the police, the army and the bureaucracy.[1] The salaries of all officials, all of whom are elective and displaceable at any time, not to exceed the average wage of a competent worker.
 
6. The weight of emphasis in the agrarian programme to be shifted to the Soviets of Agricultural Labourers’ Deputies.
 
Confiscation of all landed estates.
 
Nationalisation of all lands in the country, the land to be disposed of by the local Soviets of Agricultural Labourers’ and Peasants’ Deputies. The organisation of separate Soviets of Deputies of Poor Peasants. The setting up of a model farm on each of the large estates (ranging in size from 100 to 300 dessiatines, according to local and other conditions, and to the decisions of the local bodies) under the control of the Soviets of Agricultural Labourers’ Deputies and for the public account.
 
7. The immediate union of all banks in the country into a single national bank, and the institution of control over it by the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies. 
 
8. It is not our immediate task to “introduce” socialism, but only to bring social production and the distribution of products at once under the control of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies. 
 
9. Party tasks:
 
(a) Immediate convocation of a Party congress;
(b) Alteration of the Party Programme, mainly:
      (1) On the question of imperialism and the imperialist war.
    (2) On our attitude towards the state and our demand for a “commune state”[2];
      (3) Amendment of our out-of-date minimum programme;
(c) Change of the Party’s name.[3]
 
10. A new International.
 
We must take the initiative in creating a revolutionary International, an International against the social-chauvinists and against the “Centre”.[4]
 
In order that the reader may understand why I had especially to emphasise as a rare exception the “case” of honest opponents, I invite him to compare the above theses with the following objection by Mr. Goldenberg: Lenin, he said, “has planted the banner of civil war in the midst of revolutionary democracy” (quoted in No. 5 of Mr. Plekhanov’s Yedinstvo).
Copy of Lenin’s “April Theses”
handwritten notes.
Isn’t it a gem?
 
I write, announce and elaborately explain: “In view of the undoubted honesty of those broad sections of the mass believers in revolutionary defencism … in view of the fact that they are being deceived by the bourgeoisie, it is necessary with particular thoroughness, persistence and patience to explain their error to them….”
 
Yet the bourgeois gentlemen who call themselves Social-Democrats, who do not belong either to the broad sections or to the mass believers in defencism, with serene brow present my views thus: “The banner[!] of civil war” (of which there is not a word in the theses and not a word in my speech!) has been planted(!) “in the midst [!!] of revolutionary democracy…”.
 
What does this mean? In what way does this differ from riot-inciting agitation, from Russkaya Volya?
 
I write, announce and elaborately explain: “The Soviets of Workers’ Deputies are the only possible form of revolutionary government, and therefore our task is to present a patient, systematic, and persistent explanation of the errors of their tactics, an explanation especially adapted to the practical needs of the masses.”
 
Yet opponents of a certain brand present my views as a call to “civil war in the midst of revolutionary democracy”!
 
I attacked the Provisional Government for not having appointed an early date or any date at all, for the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, and for confining itself to promises. I argued that without the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies the convocation of the Constituent Assembly is not guaranteed and its success is impossible.
 
And the view is attributed to me that I am opposed to the speedy convocation of the Constituent Assembly!
 
I would call this “raving”, had not decades of political struggle taught me to regard honesty in opponents as a rare exception.
 
Mr. Plekhanov in his paper called my speech “raving”. Very good, Mr. Plekhanov! But look how awkward, uncouth and slow-witted you are in your polemics. If I delivered a raving speech for two hours, how is it that an audience of hundreds tolerated this “raving”? Further, why does your paper devote a whole column to an account of the “raving”? Inconsistent, highly inconsistent!
 
It is, of course, much easier to shout, abuse, and howl than to attempt to relate, to explain, to recall what Marx and Engels said in 1871, 1872 and 1875 about the experience of the Paris Commune and about the kind of state the proletariat needs. 
 
Ex-Marxist Mr. Plekhanov evidently does not care to recall Marxism.
 
I quoted the words of Rosa Luxemburg, who on August 4, 1914, called German Social-Democracy a “stinking corpse”. And the Plekhanovs, Goldenbergs and Co. feel “offended”. On whose behalf? On behalf of the Germanchauvinists, because they were called chauvinists!
 
They have got themselves in a mess, these poor Russian social-chauvinists—socialists in word and chauvinists in deed.
 

Notes

 

[1] i.e. the standing army to be replaced by the arming of the whole people.—Lenin

[2] i.e., a state of which the Paris Commune was the prototype.—Lenin

[3] Instead of “Social-Democracy”, whose official leaders throughout the world have betrayed socialism and deserted to the bourgeoisie (the “defencists” and the vacillating “Kautskyites”), we must call ourselves the Communist Party.—Lenin

[4] The “Centre” in the international Social-Democratic movement is the trend which vacillates between the chauvinists (=“defencists”) and internationalists, i.e., Kautsky and Co. in Germany, Longuet and Co. in France, Chkheidze and Co. in Russia, Turati and Co. in Italy, MacDonald and Co. in Britain, etc.—Lenin

Imperialism’s Cold War dividend

Imperialism’s Cold War dividend

Imperialism’s Cold War dividend

The intervention of KNE at the 13th Meeting of European Communist Youth Organizations

Thursday, March 16, 2017

The intervention of KNE at the 13th Meeting of European Communist Youth Organizations

Below is the full text of the intervention of the Communist Youth of Greece (KNE) at the 13th Meeting of European Communist Youth Organizations which was held in Istanbul, Turkey on 24-26 February 2017. 
Dear comrades,
We greet all the organizations participating in the 13th Meeting of European Communist Youth Organizations. We would especially like to thank our comrades from the Communist Youth of Turkey that gave their best to host this meeting, under the difficult conditions in which they fight in their country.
The Meetings of the European CYOs are of a great importance, since they contribute each year to the exchange of experience from the action in our countries, and the substantial discussion among our organizations. They can contribute further on to the reinforcement of the coordination of our struggle, through cooperation and expression of solidarity in a bilateral and multilateral level, through common acts and announcements, ideological seminars, initiatives and forms of cooperation that life constantly brings before us.
Our goal is:

-To reinforce the common struggle in our countries, against the exploitative system, the EU, the parties of the capital and their governments.
-To take a step forward in the exchange of experience that can help us take with our side more class conscious  youngsters in our countries, who will fight within the ranks of our organizations, and also to reinforce the workers’ movement in our countries with a mass introduction of young age forces.
-For the Communist Youths to discuss how we are going to become even more stronger ideologically, politically, organizationally, thus contributing to the effort of the regroupment and reinforcement of the Communist Movement, with a revolutionary strategy, discussing openly and comradely all the critical issues,ncluding the differences that exist in our analyses.
To continuously cultivate as a distinguishing characteristic of our members the proletarian internationalism, the education with the principles of Marxism – Leninism, thus, shaping the future members and cadres of the CPs with the values of class solidarity, love for the working class and the solid knowledge for its historical role, i.e. the conquest of the political power. By cultivating as a consciousness the struggle for the overthrow the bourgeois power, the power of the exploiters of the peoples, in addition to the knowledge of how the capitalist system works, and the reason why it is historically outdated and the source of all contemporary problems of the working class and youth.
The European meetings of the CYOs from the beginning of 2000 when they started, and travelling since then all around Europe, they have proven that they are a  space for discussion and rich exchange of experience for the crucial matters of our action, refuting each year those who fight against them. The fact that they continue on a rise today, as it was shown in the most recent meetings in Madrid, Frankfurt and Rome, fills us with optimism for the continuation.
Especially, this year, we have a great weapon that we must utilize: that is the lessons from the Great October Socialist Revolution of 1917 in Russia. October has proved the possibility and capability of the working class to carry out its historical mission as the only class that is truly revolutionary, to lead the construction of socialism – communism.
Today, despite the counter-revolutionary overthrows of the period 1989-91, after which of course many of our members were born or raised, we are even more sure and absolute for the timeliness and the necessity of socialism – communism. The aim of our struggle, our belief that it can become a reality, is what has always set the communists apart from those who speak of “struggles in general”  and manage the barbarity of capitalism, it distinguishes us from the marsh of social-democracy and opportunism, but also from those who use the title of the “communist party”, but in practice are turning towards the marsh – if we would like to remember Lenin’s words in “What is to be done putting the blame on the struggle for socialism-communism, accusing it as sectarian.
The objective of our struggle, that is socialism-communism, which is necessary and timely today, reinforces us with strength in our fight against the bourgeois classes that cast the ghost of communism out by also adopting anti-communist measures such as in Poland, Turkey, Serbia, Germany (we are referring only to last year) where they prosecute the communists.
The counter-revolutionary overthrows do not change the character of our era, which expresses the necessity of the passage from capitalism to Socialism. The 21st century will be the century of a new rise of the worldwide revolutionary movement and of a new series of socialist revolutions.

Everyday struggles for individual and overall achievements are indisputably necessary. However, they cannot give significant, long-term and permanent solutions. The only way-out is still the society which is going to satisfy the expanding popular needs and shall abolish exploitation of man by man.
The necessity of socialism emerges from the very sharpening of the contradictions of the contemporary capitalist world, the international imperialist system. The material preconditions for socialism have matured within the framework of capitalism.
Capitalism has socialized labour and production in an unprecedented scale. The working class, the main productive force, constitutes the majority of the economically active population. However, the means of production, the products of social labour, constitute private, capitalist property.
This contradiction is the matrix of all crisis phenomena in the contemporary capitalist societies, such as  the economic crises, the big amount of daily working hours despite the great increase of labour productivity, which of course coexists with unemployment, underemployment, the intensification of exploitation, as well as other problems that concern the life of the youth (access to culture and sports), the attempt to exterminate youth with drugs etc.
At the same time, however, that same fact signifies the necessity of the abolition of capitalist ownership of the concentrated means of production, their socialization and their planned use in social production, the planning of the economy by the workers’ power, with the aim of popular prosperity.
The KKE has highlighted these issues, it studies them further, it has imprinted them in its documents such as in the Resolution of the 18th Congress of the KKE for the causes of the overthrow of socialism, it pursues to discuss them within the working class and the poor popular strata, but also within the framework of the International Communist Movement. KNE, having as a weapon these positions of the Party, conducts inside the youth, an ideological-political struggle with the bourgeois and opportunist forces, with the ruling ideology, which the bourgeois educational system produces and reproduces. For example, the 3 brochures of the CC of KNE “Truths and Lies about Socialism”, which you too received a few months ago in English, have been distributed in tenths of thousands of copies, and they truly open ways for the intervention of KNE in schools, universities, workplaces, opening the discussion for socialism, answering rational questions that the young people have today in our countries on how the society for which we fight will be.Comrades,

The CC of the KKE has declared as a five years goal towards the completion of 100 years of revolutionary life and action of our Party and the 50 years of KNE in 2018, the dissemination of our Program, the unveiling of the decay and the contemporary  barbarity of capitalism upon the working class and the popular forces, especially the young men and women.  As a special goal, it has declared the ideological – political and organizational strengthening of the KKE and KNE, as a party of the revolutionary overthrow.
These days in Greece, the members and friends of KNE are preparing for the 20th Congress of the KKE that will take place in approximately one month. The theses of the CC of the KKE give emphasis on the international developments and the developments in our region, they analyze the contradictions that penetrate the imperialist system. It’s main content is the: “The comprehensive strengthening of the KKE for the task of regrouping the labour movement and developing the social alliance in an anticapitalist-anti-monopoly direction, in the struggle against imperialist war, for workers’ power.
In this process, a public discussion has started with the open participation of members of the KKE and KNE and fighters with whom we join hands, in a wider range with anyone who values the role of the KKE in the movement.
In the Theses that have been published by the CC of the KKE and constitute the basis of the discussion, stands out the sharpening of the inter-imperialist  antagonisms, the increase of local and regional conflicts and the dangers of a more generalized imperialist war.
By Studying the developments of the recent years the following issues are noted:
    The international capitalist economy shows signs of slowdown, capitalist recovery struggles to gain high level of growth rate. None of the powerful capitalist centres can play the role of the steam engine of capitalism.
    In these years tendencies of in the correlation of forces amongst the powerful capitalist centres with a basic feature the strengthening of China  in relation to the US, which however remains the most powerful economic and military capitalist force.
    On this basis the contradictions and antagonisms are sharpening amongst the USA, Russia, China, the EU, while more intense problems of cohesion can be seen inside the EU and the Eurozone.
    With these facts, the possibility of a sudden sharpening of the contradictions is reinforced, the possibility of more generalized imperialist conflicts in the region of Eastern Mediterranean Sea and the Middle East (Syria – Iraq, the Aegean, North Africa, the Black Sea, etc), in Europe (Ukraine – Baltic), in Asia (S/E China Sea), the Arctic.Especially concerning Greece the following are noted:

    The possibility of entering the next period to a weak capitalist recovery that will be supported on crushing the workers’- people’s rights. A recovery that will not bring a retrieval of the losses that the working-popular strata suffered during the period of the crisis, it will not bring a drastic decrease of unemployment, while the terms of entering labour for the next generation will keep deteriorating, by widening the flexible labour relations, the work with no rights, with a very small income. We also stress out that this course of recovery will be precarious because of the general international economic and political developments.
    The pursue of the Greek bourgeois class of a geostrategic upgrade of the country as an energy and trade hub, as well as the restoration of its status in the wider region of the South-Eastern Mediterranean Sea which has suffered during the period of crisis.
The sharpening of the contradictions between the bourgeois class of Greece and Turkey in the font of the wider imperialist antagonisms and contradictions in the region and the danger of a military engagement between the two states.Our Party facing these developments and the probability of an imperialist war with the direct involvement of Greece in it, it has stated a position that in our opinion has an international importance and deserves to be studied by communists of other countries. This position studies the experience of preceded imperialist wars, and of course the experience of the Bolsheviks’ Party on the stance against war, the excruciating work of preparation for the revolution, the utilization of the inter-imperialist antagonisms in its favour. Especially this year, marking the 100th anniversary of the October Revolution, it is worth studying once more this experience. We remind that Lenin and the Bolshevik party intensely conflicted with the section of social-democracy, which, violating the decisions of the 2nd International, supported the bourgeois class of their countries, by sometimes voting the war credits in the parliaments, or participating in the governments that conducted the wars, supposedly for a “peaceful development”, defending the “imperialist peace” holding the gun to the peoples’ head. A line that inevitably pushed them deeper inside the imperialist war, the sharpening of the contradictions and antagonisms of the imperialist states and their alliances.

Lenin with the strategic line that he followed, specified that, from the standpoint of the revolutionary movement of the working class aiming at revolution and the conquest of the workers’ power, the issue is not a simple “pacifist” opposition to war, but mostly the utilization of the rifts that will be objectively created in this conditions  inside the imperialist camp, the utilization of the weakening of the bourgeois class of each country with the purpose of transforming the imperialist war of each country to a struggle for the complete overthrow of the power of the bourgeois class that brings killings and poverty for the children of the working class, the peoples of each country.
In the Theses of the CC of the KKE for the 20th Congress is noted that:
“A decisive issue for the implementation of the revolutionary strategy is the relationship between the imperialist war and the destabilization of the bourgeois power in all its forms. The deepening of the economic crisis and the possible escalation of the inter-imperialist contradictions in military conflicts or even in a generalized imperialist war can create such destabilization conditions for the bourgeois power, both in Greece as well as in other countries in the region.
In the case of Greece’s military engagement in an imperialist war and in imperialist interventions, the Party – defending the interests of the working class and the Greek people- must lead the organisation of the working-peoples struggle in order to disengage Greece from the imperialist war. That requires not only the defeat of the any possible imperialist invader- whether it is a temporary “ally” or a temporary “rival” of the country’s bourgeoisie- but the total defeat of the local bourgeois class itself. This is the only way for the passage of power to the working class and the exit from capitalist barbarity which, as long as it prevails and decays, will bring either war or imperialist “peace” with the gun held to the peoples’ head.
In case of such a war, the Central Committee, with the corresponding readiness, must evaluate step by step the course of the imperialist war in order to intervene promptly and accurately, thus preparing the working class-people’s forces. There may be a long period of the country’s participation in an imperialist war, without the outbreak of a revolutionary situation, especially in case of invasion-occupation. Special effort is certainly needed in a non-revolutionary situation for the successful creation of the conditions which are required for the defeat of the domestic and foreign bourgeoisie. It is a job which has specific difficulties that cannot be solved simply with some general slogans about the condemnation or exit from the imperialist war, but includes multifaceted issues which the political vanguard must continuously study.
Overall, the maturity of the subjective factor in revolutionary conditions is  also determined by today’s work: By the ideological-political maturation, the assimilation of the Party’s Programme, the ability to act in all kinds of circumstances, but also by the education of working class-popular masses in the framework of the activity in an anticapitalist-antimonopoly direction in today’s conditions. “The main issue that we are going to encounter ideologically, but also as a life stance, especially the young communists, is the revolutionary work in non-revolutionary conditions, the non-integration to the relatively “legal”, “peaceful” period, something that the International Communist Movement has paid a lot of times and still does. The maturity of the subjective factor in revolutionary conditions depends also on our work today, on our capability to educate workers’- popular masses in action in an anti-capitalist – anti-monopoly direction. This is applicable even more in conditions when everything seems still, or moving very slowly towards the aim of the workers’ – people’s counter-attack or even when they retreat.

From this point of view, it is very important to reinforce the discussion on the causes of the imperialist wars through acts, interventions, articles on a daily basis is very important. And also, to reinforce the struggle against the presence of NATO bases located in our county, as well as of the EU Commands, by claiming their closure.  The demand for the return of all Greek troops that are abroad, not having even a single soldier outside the borders. To reinforce the struggle in order for the NATO naval force to leave from the Aegean Sea.
We, communists oppose to the various warmonger and nationalist cries, to the creation of any climate of hostility between one people and another. Our peoples do not have any interest in their alignment behind the aim of capitalist development, independently of the means of its achievement.  We also oppose to the trap of bourgeois cosmopolitanism of capital. We lay out a line of struggle that does not detach the defense of the borders and the sovereignty rights from the struggle for the overthrow of the power of capital in each country.Dear comrades,

We seek all of the above to constitute an integral part of the daily work of KNE, which gives important fights in the workplaces, in the vocational training places, in universities and schools in order to win the section of the youth that has an objective interest against the system of exploitation with the political proposal of the KKE. November and December were months of great militant mobilizations and rallies of young workers, unemployed, university and school students all around Greece, with literally tenths of thousands of young people participating in them. The highest peak was the great worker’s strike on December 8th, thus giving an answer to the bourgeois class of the country, the government and its international “partners”.  Just 3 days ago, rallies took place in cities of Greece against the new anti-people’s measures of the government.
The forces of KNE led the organization of the fight, against the anti-popular policy, authoritarianism and the propaganda of the coalition government of SYRIZA (opportunist party that transformed rapidly into a social-democratic party) with ANEL (a bourgeois nationalist party). And also against the terrorism of school directors and employers at workplaces. It is a typical example that at the same period the government put pupils on trial for their participation in previous mobilizations, with the  most distinctive being the arrest of a university student, member of KNE, who was talking to pupils outside a school and her prosecution according to an article that was embodied in the Penal Code the years that followed the civil war and relates to political repression.
Against the dissolution and degeneration of the university students’ movement that the groupings of the bourgeois and opportunist parties conserve and reproduce, us communists give the fight daily for the revival, the functioning and action- first of all the militant orientation- of the students’ unions. The Students’ Militant Front (MAS), the militant pole of rally of students, councils, unions, which was created on the initiative of KNE has a stable and recognizable action of nationwide range. The grouping of KNE in the universities emerged as a second force with a percentage a little higher than 20%.
We give all our powers so that the steps that were counted in the worker’s movement are stabilized, in order to augment the part of the youth that firmly stands militantly by the side of its natural ally, the working class.
In light of the strike of last December we collided in the workplaces with the employers. We confronted decisively the employers’ threats and the fear  cultivated by the repression mechanisms, we fought inside the organizations of the movement, in order to organize general assemblies, tours and discussions with hundreds of people in the workplaces in big sectors. Many young people took the step to come for the first time to the general assembly of their trade union, to participate to a trade union committee in their workplace, to be recruited in their union. There were thousands of young people who went on strike and took part in the rallies of the class-oriented trade-union movement in our country, which is expressed through the All-workers Militant Front (PAME). The initiative of trade-union organizations to submit their own Draft Law for the Collective Labour Agreements according to the criteria of the contemporary needs of the working class had preceded. This initiative was supported by more than 500 trade-union organizations all around Greece.
For a few days now, the small farmers have formed roadblocks in central road interchanges all over Greece protesting against the unbearable taxation, the cost of production, the sale prices of their products, the disasters, damages from the bad weather. Us communists, we give the fight to win over the farmers with the small – medium holdings in the anti-monopoly direction of struggle, to separate themselves from the capitalist farmers.
After two years of the SYRIZA- ANEL governing, we could say that the KKE has been proven right for its main estimations of the anti-popular character of any government in capitalism. Instead of hope which it promised, SYRIZA brought the 3rd memorandum of anti-people measures and is preparing a 4th one, it approves with fast track processes in the parliament one anti-people measure after another, it drags tenths of school students, trade-unionists and strikers in court, it forbids demonstrations and rallies, it represses the pensioners with SWAT police and chemicals, its cadres make joint visits to the Aegean islands alongside the cadres on trial of the Nazi criminal Golden Dawn, in order for it to become a reputable bourgeois parliamentary party and to be used more effectively in harming the movement and in anti-communism.
The government, whose basic body is SYRIZA, had proven right the option of the bourgeois class of Greece for having supported it. It has proven the EU, the IMF, Obama, Hollande and other imperialists right, for the faith they have shown to it. And this is, not only because it managed to pass all the agreed anti-people measures, necessary for the capitalist recovery, but also because it managed to usurp militant traditions and slogans in order to deceive the people, as no pure bourgeois party could. It managed with a great success to stop the radicalization of an important part of the youth, which wanted to collide, .However , also because of its political inexperience, they believed that the conflict with the “partmerss” promised by the government would benefit the workers.
The KKE and KNE, we thank from the bottom of our hearts the communists, the workers and the young people all over the world that supported us over these last years in our struggle in Greece.
We are proud fof the stance that we held these last years, for the fact that we remained loyal to our principled positions about the non-participation of a revolutionary party in a bourgeois government, despite the election costs, despite the fact that there were even a few CPs in other countries that openly or secretly supported SYRIZA, and they have great responsibilities firstly towards the working class of their country, because they tried to lure it into supporting a force serving capitalism, NATO and the EU. We strongly believe that our stance is a consignment for our people, for our Party itself, for the International Communist Movement. We utilize the struggle and the high esteem for the KKE, the fact that more people now recognize that our Party was right, and we give a complex fight for the organization and the radical, anti-capitalist orientation of the workers’ struggle, the struggle of the youth.
The KNE gave and still gives a battle for the exposure of the class character of these measures, the fact that the capitalist growth is supported by the exploitation of the working class and  will take place upon the ashes of the labour rights and consequently it cannot be a common “national goal”. We struggle against disappointment and fatalism, the rationale that says that nothing can change, that fights have no results, enlightening the only way out for the peoples of the whole world, namely the fight for the overthrow of capitalism and the construction of the socialist – communist society, the abolition of exploitation of man by manDear comrades,

We bring the warm and comrade greetings on behalf of the CC of the KNE to all of you. Allow us, however, to give special greetings to the comrades of the Communist Youth of Turkey for this very reason: the relations between our organizations are exemplary and in our opinion they deserve to be studied by other CYOs as well, mainly for the base on which they are built. We follow the very close and comrade relations of our parties, KKE and TKP, relations that are built in very complex conditions with leading light the class interests, the class unity of the working class of the two countries, the struggle for the overthrow of capitalism, the construction of socialism – communism. They are confirmed through tenths of common actions that we have developed especially in the last period, such as the recent visit of a delegation of the CC of the KNE in Istanbul after the invitation of the Communist Youth of Turkey.
Our deep comrade relations also derive from the fraternal relations between the peoples and the youths of our countries, since we have nothing to divide, and we declare that being loyal to the principles of proletarian internationalism we will fight alongside to put an end to the capitalist barbarity, to the causes resulting in imperialist wars, to put an end to the bloodshed of the peoples that happens for the interests of the exploiters. With these thoughts we wish every success to our works!
Long-live the common struggle of the Communist Youths of Europe!
Long live the 100 years of the October Revolution!
Socialism, $3-an-acre land and teaching farm wives how to brush their teeth

  • Cash Opportunity for Dyess
  • Socialism Settles Down
  • http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/article/115857/socialism-3-an-acre-land-and-teaching-far-wives-how-to-brush-their-teeth?utm_source=enews_031017&utm_medium=email&utm_content=agriculture-news&utm_campaign=newsletter&enews_zone=3821

Larry Sims wasn’t a
Johnny Cash fan growing up

He was raised with his 12 brothers and sisters about a quarter-mile from the old Cash place in Dyess, and to him the experience seemed too everyday to be noteworthy.

“It was like growing up next door to Elvis,” said Sims, who spent 12 years as Dyess mayor and is now a meticulous custodian of the Johnny Cash Boyhood Home and a knowledgeable tour guide at the Historic Dyess Colony.

The Dyess Colony is shown divided into plots in this map created in 1936.

The Dyess Colony is shown divided into plots in this map created in 1936.

“When Johnny came back for a big homecoming in 1968, I didn’t even see the show. I was a teenager then, and we were getting ready to get the cotton crop in.” But Sims, a former Dyess mayor who has worked for Arkansas State University for a couple of years as facilities manager at the heritage site, eventually came to love the words and music of the Man in Black, just as he loves the black-dirt lowlands from which they both sprang.

An Experiment in Socialism

The words, numbers and dollar signs tumble out when Sims describes the Dyess Colony, the largest federal agriculture resettlement program of the New Deal era, and essentially an experiment in American socialism.

Though it lasted only a decade, the colony gave hundreds of rural Arkansas families hope during the darkest days of the Depression. The handpicked farm families got new houses, 20 or 40 acres to farm, animals and groceries, all for no money down. Schools and churches were built, and a hospital provided settlers some of the best health care in all of rural Arkansas.

“The government came here with 1,300 men to create a town out of a snake-filled swamp,” Sims said, describing the project’s birth in 1934. “It was socialism, you know. The government bought the land, improved it, built the roads and the houses. W.R. Dyess gave the town its name.”

The first lady of the United States, Eleanor Roosevelt, toured Dyess on June 9, 1936, visiting with locals and eating supper at the Dyess Café.

The first lady of the United States, Eleanor Roosevelt, toured Dyess on June 9, 1936, visiting with locals and eating supper at the Dyess Café.

William Reynolds Dyess was a Delta farmer and businessman who became director of the Arkansas Emergency Relief Administration. His dream was to build a self-supporting agriculture colony in the Delta for destitute farmers, and it was becoming a reality when he died in a plane crash in 1936. The colony was renamed in his honor.

With $3 million in federal aid, “the government got nearly 16,000 acres at a cost of $3 an acre,” Sims said.”Settlers were upset later when they were charged $15 an acre. Now it’s some of the best land in Arkansas. Today it would cost $4,000 an acre, if you could find any for sale.”

At great effort, laborers making 30 cents an hour drained the land, cut a series of muddy roads and built the 500 farm cottages, which were worth about $1,500 each and highly prized.

“There was great competition for places,” said Ruth Hawkins, the director of Arkansas State University’s Heritage Sites. “Families had to prove they had been successful farmers before the Depression. They knew farming; they had just been wiped out by disasters.”

Resettlement applications collected meticulous details on the colonists. Questionnaires asked about health problems, family friction and even any evidence of “hereditary weaknesses, physical or mental.”

The town operated as a cooperative, with seed purchased and crops sold communally. Families got a share of profits from crops and the Dyess cannery and general store.

Advertisement

“Women would make little dolls for the store to sell,” said Sims, pointing to an exhibit including one of the dolls and a sample of the local scrip, called doodlum, that settlers used for currency. Settlers received instruction in hygiene, including suggestions for brushing their teeth twice daily with baking soda, wearing clean underwear daily and washing their hair twice a month.

War Takes Its Toll

But as World War II offered greater employment opportunities, most of Dyess’ residents left for military service or defense factory work, never to return. By 2010, only 410 residents remained in the town, which had incorporated in 1964. The Historic Dyess Colony and Johnny Cash Boyhood Home opened on Aug. 16, 2014.

Sims credited much of the early restoration effort to another big music-business figure from Dyess, Gene Williams.

Williams, who was about six years younger but knew Cash in school, donated “the first $50,000” to the Dyess restoration drive, Sims said. Williams had found success as a Memphis disc jockey before building a diverse business career as a TV personality, radio station owner and one of the original country music entrepreneurs in Branson, Missouri. His weekly live broadcast from Branson, sponsored by Lucas Oil Products Inc., was beamed to 173 stations across the nation. Williams died in 2011.

  • A resettled farmer and his family, photographed by Arthur Rothstein in 1935 at Dyess.
  • Dyess residents assist each other in a community canning workshop, photographed by Ben Shahn.
  • Sharecropper family members sit on their porch, photographed by Ben Shahn in 1935 at Dyess.
Dyess residents assist each other in a community canning workshop, photographed by Ben Shahn.

Last year, Gov. Asa Hutchinson committed $100,000 to the Dyess redevelopment project, and a performance by Johnny Cash’s daughter, Rosanne Cash, raised an additional $20,000.

“As we promote tourism, we recognize that a significant part of the future tourism in this state is our heritage sites, including the Johnny Cash Boyhood Home in Dyess,” Hutchinson said. “I am delighted that the state can continue to support these sites for the next generation.”

The current generation in Dyess is still awaiting business development. The town has only two real businesses beyond farming: Bailey’s Grocery and Long’s Auto Repair.

Kandice Bailey, who with her husband, Jeff, owns the grocery store about a block from the Colony Center, says the town has declined in the 11 years they’ve had the 70-year-old store. But she’s excited about the heritage festival. “We’re hoping it brings us some revenue. They’ve had shows before at the old community center, but that’s farther away and I’m not sure people knew we were here. With events right here in the middle of Dyess, we’re thinking it will bring people in. I doubt if the Johnny Cash Heritage Festival will cause people to move here, but we’re expecting it to help business while the visitors are here.”

A Tourism Sampling of Arkansas’ Upper Delta

The Historic Dyess Colony and Johnny Cash Boyhood Home are just part of Arkansas State University’s heritage sites, which seek to support tourism while educating visitors about unique and important places in the history of eastern Arkansas.

Dyess is the most popular with visitors, attracting some 10,000 a year with more expected now that the Visitors’ Center and new signage are in place. 110 Center Drive, Dyess, (870) 764-2274

But not too far behind is the Hemingway-Pfeiffer Museum & Education Center in Piggott (Clay County) at the northern end of the scenic Crowley’s Ridge Parkway. The center, which attracts some 8,000 annual visitors, includes a barn studio used by Ernest Hemingway and the family home of Hemingway’s second wife, Pauline Pfeiffer. Hemingway wrote parts of one of his most famous novels, “A Farewell to Arms,” in Piggott. 1021 W. Cherry St., Piggott, (870) 598-3487

Near Dyess in the town of Tyronza (Poinsett County) is the Southern Tenant Farmers Museum, dedicated to knowledge and understanding of the tenant farming and agriculture labor movements in the Mississippi River Delta. Tyronza was the home to one of the first integrated agriculture labor organizations, the Southern Tenant Farmers Union. 117 S. Main St., Tyronza, (870) 487-2909

The Rohwer Japanese American Relocation Center, an affiliate of the A-State sites supported in conjunction with other Arkansas colleges, tells of a World War II executive order by President Franklin D. Roosevelt that led to the roundup of thousands of Japanese-Americans who were held in detention camps. Up to 8,000 were kept behind barbed wire at a 500-acre camp in Rohwer (Desha County). Few visible signs of the camp still exist, but the detainees’ stories live on in nearby McGehee. 100 S. Railroad St., McGehee, (870) 222-9168

Lakeport Plantation near Lake Village (Chicot County) in the Lower Delta is Arkansas’ only remaining antebellum plantation home along the Mississippi River. Built in 1859, the Greek Revival structure was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1974, and given to A-State by the Sam Epstein Angel family in 2001. After five years of restoration, it was opened to the public. 601 Highway 142, Lake Village,(870) 265-6031

  • Ernest Hemingway wrote portions of his novel A Farewell to Arms while visiting his in-laws in Piggott, staying at what is now known as the Hemingway-Pfeiffer House.
  • A mural depicting the cotton heritage of east Arkansas was painted on the south wall of the Southern Tenant Farmers Museum in Tyronza by Connie Watkins of Paragould.
  • Lakeport Plantation near Lake Village is the only remaining Arkansas antebellum plantation home on the Mississippi River.  Near the top of this image, you can see the Greenville Bridge which opened in 2010.
Lakeport Plantation near Lake Village is the only remaining Arkansas antebellum plantation home on the Mississippi River. Near the top of this image, you can see the Greenville Bridge which opened in 2010.