Category: struggle for socialism
Boyun Eğme! The Communist Party of Turkey (TKP) celebrated its 97th anniversary

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Boyun Eğme! The Communist Party of Turkey (TKP) celebrated its 97th anniversary

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2017/09/boyun-egme-communist-party-of-turkey.html
The Communist Party of Turkey (TKP) released a written statement on the 97th anniversary of its founding, said: “We are not asking for the impossible but the very possible. We lead the only possible way to remain human.”
 
“TKP founded on 10 September 1920 in Baku. The resistance struggling the occupation in Anatolia met the young Soviet revolution at that city. That very day, the communists of Turkey gathered together in a single party and declared being the comrades from Turkey of the international struggle for a socialist World,” the statement said. 
 
Underlined the fact that a proletarian revolution, a socialist order which will end the capitalist exploitation, TKP said: “Hence, now socialism is also a must for an independent and free country.”
 
“97 years ago TKP was founded by those who had seen socialism as the future for humanity. After 97 years TKP says: Without socialism, there is no humanity. No liberty, no enlightenment, no justice, no equity, no fraternity. Socialism is not merely the emancipation of the labour. Socialism is now a matter of existence,” the statement read. 
 
TKP once again announce to people of Turkey and the people of the world that the Socialist Turkey and Socialist World will found. 
 
“Salute to the bright future of Turkey and the World. Salute to the ones to join TKP’s struggle. For many many years,” the statement said. 
 
The Communist Party of Turkey (TKP) celebrated its 97th foundation anniversary last weekend in three metropolitan centers of Turkey, İzmir, Ankara and Istanbul.
 
 
The Communist Party of Turkey (TKP) members gathered together with its friends in the events held in three metropolitans. The events started with the singing of the anthem the International. Kemal Okuyan, the general secretary of TKP, and Aydemir Güler, central committee member of TKP, gave the speeches of the events in three cities. 
 
“WE HAVE GATHERED TO DECLARE OUR WILL TO UNDO THE HISTORICAL DISASTER”.
 
During the events where thousands of people gathered, Kemal Okuyan, the general secretary of TKP, gave the first speech. Okuyan noted that neither of the republics coinciding with the foundation of TKP in 1920 exists anymore, the Soviet Republic and the Turkish Republic, and the Communist Party of Turkey feels ashamed for that.
 
There is the rule of the Russian oligarchy instead of the Soviet Republic; and the rule of imams instead of Turkish Republic, Okuyan commented. “Therefore, we have not gathered for a celebration today. We are here to declare our will to undo this historical disaster.”, Okuyan noted.
 
Okuyan also said that it is impossible to create “more just, freer and more peaceful capitalism” and thus “the humanity will either be doomed to live in barbarity or fight for socialism and build a humanitarian society.” Reminding other historical examples, Okuyan noted that in all cases where the people tried to “tame” capitalism, it got wilder.
 
“WE HAVE TO SURPASS HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS”.
 
Aydemir Güler
Aydemir Güler, the central committee member of TKP, gave the second speech during the event. Güler said that neither Mustafa Suphi and his comrades, the founders of the historical TKP, were in a dream while founding the TKP 97 years ago, nor the members of TKP are in a dream today. Güler noted that the Communist Party of Turkey will get organised step by step and found the socialist republic in Turkey.
 
Güler pointed out that the capitalism can never go hand in hand with the enlightenment, and yet the liberals make a mistake in compromising with the bourgeoisie to defend enlightenment values. Güler also reminded that the popular discourse of supporting the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) against the threat of fascism in Turkey is nonsense because CHP is a bourgeois party and it cannot defend values of independence, freedom and secularism forever. The duty of the communists is to surpass historical developments and never come to terms with the bourgeois actors, Güler said.
 
The events concluded with the performance of music bands in all three cities and with the determination to build a stronger struggle for socialism in Turkey, which is not only necessary but also possible. 
Kostas Papadakis – The equation of Communism with Nazism is unacceptable and provocative

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

Kostas Papadakis – The equation of Communism with Nazism is unacceptable and provocative

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2017/08/kostas-papadakis-equation-of-communism.html
By Kostas Papadakis*.
 
Article first published in the “Efimerida ton Syntakton” newspaper, 22/08/2017, reproduced from inter.kke.gr.
 
The anticommunist conference-provocation of the Estonian Presidency of the EU is no bolt from the blue. Similar anti-communist events being organized in the framework of the so-called “European day of remembrance for the victims of totalitarian regimes”, as the EU with enormous budgets is trying to establish the 23rd of August. This is an orchestrated campaign that aims to slander socialism, rewrite history, and to unacceptably and provocatively equate communism with the monster of fascism. I.e. equating Nazism with the forces that in historical terms smashed it.
 
A basic goal is to conceal the fact that fascism is a form of capital’s power in specific conditions. In Germany, Nazism constituted the ideal form to support capital in the conditions of the military preparations for the conquest of new markets, in the conditions of a very deep capitalist crisis, of the rise of revolutionary ideas, of the increase of the prestige of the KPD and the USSR. It was supported politically and financially by sections of German capital, it identified with monopolies (Krupp, I.G.Farben, Siemens etc.), it collaborated with the colossi of the “democratic” capitalist states (General Motors, General Electric, ITT, Ford, IBM).
Nazism-fascism met its deadliest and most determined opponent in the socialist society of the USSR, which was established by the October Revolution 100 years ago. The 20 million dead soviets was the bloody proof of this deadly confrontation between socialism and Nazism. The communists in every country were the most determined and combative anti-fascist force, with the role of the KKE and EAM in our country being a characteristic example of this.
The  anti-communist campaign of the EU, of this capitalist union, goes hand in hand with the offensive against the workers’-people’s rights and has been going on for many years.
 
The wretched anti-communist memorandum of the Council of Europe in 2005 lent impetus to these anti-historical efforts. However it did not gain the necessary majority in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe that would have made the measures that accompanied it compulsory for the member-states.
Through the decisive contribution and mobilization of the KKE, it met with the broad and mass condemnation of the Greek people and other peoples of Europe, of trade unions and other mass organizations, of public figures. The then governments of Greece, Portugal and Cyprus expressed their intention not to support it. The majority of MPs, MEPs  of the Greek bourgeois parties stated their opposition.
 
There followed the anti-communist resolutions in the European Parliament in 2006 and particularly the resolution of April 2009 entitle “European consciousness and totalitarianism”, it should be noted that no Greek MEP voted in favour of it.  There then followed other anti-communist proclamations and decisions of the EU.
Beyond the declarations and resolutions, practical anti-communist measures are being pushed forwards in a number of EU member-states (e.g. Poland, Hungary, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania) as well as in countries connected to it (e.g. Ukraine). We are referring specifically to the persecution, prosecution, and condemnation of communists, bans on the activities of the CPs, bans on communist symbols etc.
 
A self-evident consequence of the anti-communist campaign is the justification, prettification and exoneration of Nazism-fascism and its atrocities. In these countries, honours are bestowed on, pensions and privileges granted to the Nazi collaborators and their political descendants are being promoted.
 
This year, the EU generously financed the “House of European History” in order to promote its anti-historical anti-communist proselytizing while for years it has been organizing the anti-communist programme “Europe for citizens” in order to slander socialism, with the involvement of local municipalities, NGOs etc.
 
Several forces utilized the opportunity provided by the anti-communist fiesta in Estonia to rear their heads. Primitive and crude anti-communism, in which ND plays the leading role, followed by PASOK and POTAMI, together with of course Nazi Golden Dawn, copies all the propaganda with aim of slandering socialism, the USSR, with the aim of falsifying the history of the peoples.
 
The absence of the government from this year’s anti-historical anti-communist fiestas in Estonia cannot conceal the fact that the forces of SYRIZA in the movement are propagandizing-overtly or covertly-the equation of Stalin with Hitler, are playing a leading role in anti-soviet and anti-communist propaganda, while they hide or distort the relationship between capitalism and fascism.
 
A characteristic example of the government’s hypocrisy is that fact that a representative of the government has attended similar anti-communist events last year in Bratislava, something the KKE had denounced, while a few weeks ago, on July 15th, “Avgi” published a vulgar article propagandizing the equation between communism and fascism.
 
The people’s experience proves that escalation of anticommunism is a precursor for new anti-people measures and restrictions on people’s rights, a precursor for the launching of a new round of imperialist wars. The struggle for the abolition of the anti-communist persecution and bans, the struggle against anti-communism, for the satisfaction of the contemporary needs of the people and their rights, is integrally linked to the struggle for workers’ power, for the working class and popular strata to be emancipated from the shackles of capitalist exploitation and the imperialist unions, for the peoples to become the owners of the wealth they produce.
 
Whatever they try to do, history is not going to be rewritten with blue, green or black letters. It has been written with the blood of the millions of militants and communists who fought Nazism-fascism. It is in the hands of the peoples today to join forces with the communists in order to consign capitalism, which creates poverty, wars, fascism-Nazism and its nostalgists,  to the dustbin of history.
 
* Member of the CC and MEP of the Communist Party of Greece (KKE).
The October Revolution and Yugoslavia – Past, Present and Perspectives

Sunday, August 27, 2017

The October Revolution and Yugoslavia – Past, Present and Perspectives

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-october-revolution-and-yugoslavia.html
By Marijan Kubik & Alksandar Banjanac.
Source: International Communist Review,  Issue 7, 2017.
The Great October Socialist Revolution that happened one hundred years ago turned a new page in the history of mankind. The Great October Revolution ignited the revolutionary spirit in the hearts of hundreds of millions of people around the world, and infused them with confidence in their fight for a new world.
The October Revolution did not break out suddenly and as something that was generated solely in the Russian reality, it rather resulted from the entire flow of recent world, and in particular European, history. It was the fruit of the socialist aspirations, existence and functioning of the working class with the goal of tearing down the society divided in classes and the creation of classless human society.
All the progressive forces on the planet recognise the epochal, profoundly transformative role of the October Revolution and its significance as a continuous inspiration. We proudly and rightfully point out that the Russian October Revolution also inspiredthe Yugoslav workers’ movement. Inspired by the ideas ofthe October, it was preparing for a long and painful, but victorious socialist revolution of its own.
World War I
World War I is the prototype of the maxim defined by a military theorist Karl von Clausewitz (1780-1831): “War is a mere continuation of policy by other means”. The shot fired by the Yugoslav nationalists Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo in 1914 set off the powder keg filled with political, economic and military rivalry among the major powers.
It was the culmination of long-standing diplomatic and political squabbling and bickering, arising from economic rivalries of the European capitalist powers – their capitalist elite.
On the occasion of the hundredth anniversary of the October Revolution, it is impossible not to remember, with deepest respect, Dimitrije Tucovic, under whose leadership the Serbian Social Democratic party functioned as one of the most progressive and revolutionary workers’ parties in Europe. Tucovic dedicated his entire life to the struggle for workers’ rights, social justice and civil and human rights. With Lenin, Tucovic was one of the rare steadfast Marxists, who spoke against the opportunism of the members of the Second International. His conviction, that “conflicts, dangers of war and wars are not caused by hostilities and hatred between peoples, but by the efforts of the capitalist class to subject and exploit other nations and peoples”, is still undeniably true today.
During the war in Yugoslavia,there were strong winds announcing change – the Red October. There are records of protests of sailors in the Austro-Hungarian war ports by the end of 1917. In Pula, there were anti-war protests, as well as desertions. The great strike of 11,000 workers of the arsenal seeking a truce, higher wages and better nutrition broke out in 1918. In support of workers’ unrest, the sailors from the warships “Erzherzog”, “Prinz Eugen” and “Aspern”, refused obedience to their commanders. Thirty-five members of the Naval air stationreceived long-term prison sentences on the grounds of disobedience. Due to the senseless expansion of war operations, worsening living conditions, difficult position of the Slavs, and echoes of the October Revolution, the unrestswere spreading. The mutiny of sailors in the Bay of Kotor began on February 1, 1918at noon on the ships “Sankt Georg” and “Gea” when about 6,000 sailors of the Austro-Hungarian navy took command into their own hands and put up red flags on about forty ships in the Bay of Kotor. They requested separate peace to end the war, improved nutrition and regular leaves.
This was not only an expression of anti-war sentiment in the Austro-Hungarian monarchy.According to the report of the Serbian military attaché in Padua, the rebellion of sailors was “a result of Leninist ideas that were so widespread in the Austro-Hungarian Navy that they significantly weakened the familiar harsh discipline”.
However, due to a series of oversights on the part of the leadership of the rebellion,the uprising started to fade to a certain extent. The Command issued an ultimatum to the rebel sailors on February 2,it ordered evacuation of the civilian population and the German U-boats were ordered to sink the rebel ships. The rebellion was crushed. Three hundred eighty-six sailors and non-commissioned officers were charged before the regular military court. Of these, 48% were of South Slavic origin, 20% Italian, 13% Czechs and Slovaks, 10% Germans, 8% Hungarians, and the rest were Poles, Romanians and Ukrainians. Although about 1,200 sailors were arrested, only 98 of these were taken before theimpromptu military court. Around ten sailors died in prison,two died in the rebellion, the majorityreceived long-term prison sentences and four were sentenced to death by a firing squad.
World War I ended with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, which was a great humiliation for the German people. The young Soviet republic was completely excluded from the drafting of the treaty. Supposed to put an end to war, the Treaty of Versailles turned it into a constant threat hovering over all humanity. Rather than provide “eternal peace”, the treaty missed its target from the very beginning. In fact, the same generation that created the peace treaty found itself amidst the flames of another war, even more devastating and more horrible and with more crimes and victims, only twenty years later. Karl Marx’scomment about The Treaty of Frankfurt – “This is the safest way to transform the war into a European institution. This is the most reliable way to turn the future peace into a mere ceasefire.” –is also applicable to the Treaty of Versailles.
Yugoslavs in the October Revolution
The First Serbian Volunteer Division was formed on April 16, 1916 in the town of Odessa. It consisted of nearly 10,000 volunteers. Shortly before The February Revolution, the army corps consisted of approximately 40,000 volunteers. The town of Odessa was its headquarters. The First Division headquarters was in Voznesensky and the Second Division headquarters was in Alexandrovsky. The triumph of the Bolsheviks over the imperial dynasty could have been well anticipated. In such a revolutionary mood, new ideas started spreading among the Serbian Volunteer Corps soldiers. Towards the end of March of 1917, arrays officers started forming military unions within the Volunteer Corps. The proposal was supported and encouraged by the revolutionary unions of the Ukrainian citizens in the area between Odessa and Voznesansky, where the Serbian Volunteer Corps units were situated.
The Serbian Volunteer Corps Command attempted to prevent the spreading of revolutionary ideas among its members. Therefore, in April 1917, General Mihajlo Zivkocic introduced, by a decree, troop, regiment and division councils, as well as the Corps Assembly, intending to use them to influence the political mood in the units. The results, however, were insignificant.
In the assembly of Serbian Bolshevik-oriented volunteers in Odessa, the Federal Yugoslavia was proclaimed as the ideal. It was emphasized that “The Russian Revolution and the victory of the Russian democracy are a new era in the history of mankind and, thus, the Russian revolution cannot remain only Russian”. The volunteers established the Yugoslav Revolutionary Union in Kiev in summer of 1917.
The supporters of the Revolution started leaving The Volunteer Corps on a large scale, thus reducing it to one half.
Around 35,000 Yugoslavs were involved in the revolutionary activities – they joined the Red Army units. Towards the end of 1917, the Serbian-Soviet Revolutionary Unit was formed and in August of 1918 the First Yugoslav Communist Regiment was established in Tsaritsyn. Many of the Yugoslavs remained in the lasting memory as the Soviet Union heroes. Many participators, upon their return in their home country, got actively involved in the activities of the unification of the proletariat in the newly formed bourgeois state and they played a significant role in creating a revolutionary workers party.
In the beginning of World War I, social democratic parties were either prohibited in Yugoslav countries or their work was suspended due to war circumstances. In the final stages of war, under the influence of harsh social circumstances and the perspective of defeat of the Central Forces, they gradually renew their organisation and began to operate. From 1917, and in particular in 1918, in the Yugoslav countries, primarily those under Austro-Hungarian rule, there were many military, workers’ and peasants’ movements. Under the influence of those revolutionary developments and in the aftermath of the October Revolution, the renewal of the activities of social democratic parties was imbued with vehement political and ideological conflicts. Among the leaders of the recently renewed social democratic parties of Serbia, Bosnia and Hercegovina and Dalmatia the supporters of class struggle prevailed. They emphasized the solidarity with the October Revolution and accepted Lenin’s initiative to create a new, communist International.
In the time of establishing the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians in December of 1918, the leaders of Serbian and Bosnia and Hercegovina’s social democratic parties proposed an initiative for uniting workers’ organisations in the new country. The congress of united social democratic parties and organisations, held in Belgrade from April 20 to April 23, 1919, passed a decision to form the Social Democratic Workers Party of Yugoslavia (of communists) or SRPJ(k). They declared a revolution and a dictatorship of the proletariat, as well as acceding to the Communist International as their goals. On that occasion and with the participation of the same delegates, the Congress of the Trade -Union Unification was held where the unity of trade unions movement was declared and the Central Workers Trade Union Council was elected. A Conference of socialist (communist) women was held, too. They accepted the programme of the Social Democratic Workers Party of Yugoslavia. On October 10, 1919 in Zagreb, the League of the Communist Youth of Yugoslavia (SKOJ) was established and they also adopted the programme of the Social Democratic Workers Party of Yugoslavia.
Socialist workers party of Yugoslavia (communist) changes its name to the Communist Party of Yugoslavia at its Second congress in the following 1920.
The year of 1919 was marked by the rise of the revolutionary movement. The influence of the SRPJ(k) was increasing rapidly and soon it grew into a significant political factor in the country. In the municipal elections in March and August of 1920, the party won the elections in many municipalities in cities such as Belgrade, Zagreb, Osjek, Skopje, Nis, etc. In the elections for the Constituent Assembly in November of 1920, it won 59 mandates and was ranked third according to the number of MPs in the Assembly. In summer of 1920 SRPJ(k) had over 65,000 members and the united trade unions around 210, 000. At that time, it published its central newspaper – The Workers newspaper, as well as a number of province and local newspapers.
In the municipal elections held in March of 1920 in Croatia, Slovenia and Dalmatia, 490 communist councillors were elected. They won the majority of votes and absolute majority of mandates in Zagreb, Osijek, Vukovar, Knjizevac, Virovitica, Crikvenica, Cakovac, Valpov, etc. A communist Svetozar Delic was elected the mayor of Zagreb. However, the duke (ban) appointed by the Government in Belgrade annulled the results of the elections and appointed the city commissioner, justifying this act by a lawsuit for treason that had been filed against Delic. In response, Delic convened a session, but the police dispersed it. Communists did exceptionally well in the elections in Montenegro, particularly in Podgorica. In the municipal elections in Serbia, Macedonia and Kosovo in August of 1920, communists won in 37 municipalities, Belgrade, Nis and Skopje being among them. In many cases, similarly to Zagreb, the officials prevented the elected communist councillors from taking over the office; the same thing happened in Belgrade, where Filip Filipovic was elected the mayor but was prevented from taking over the office.
In April of 1920 the strike of about 50,000 railroad workers was held, which was one of the most major workers’ actions of that period. The strike was marked by the reinforced commitment of the regime to suppress the revolutionary movement (the first prohibitions of celebrating May 1, stronger censorship, arrests of SRPJ(k) leaders, suspension of communist councillors in municipalities and dissolution of the communist local governments, declaration of militarisation of railroad workers, armed attacks on strikers, etc.).
Calming of revolutionary movements in Europe, the support of imperialistic forces of Antanta to the office holders in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians and its partial inner stabilisation, enabled the regime to carry out more resolute operations against the revolutionary workers’ movement in the country. In December of 1920 the Government, accusing the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (CPY) of preparing a coup, took advantage of the conflicts with the gendarmerie and the army in the miners’ strikes in Bosnia and Hercegovina and Slovenia to ban communist activities and to impose dictatorship by a so-called “Obznana” law (Proclamation). The long period of dictatorship would last almost until the beginning of World War II.  The Kingdom of Yugoslavia, which had been extremely reactionary and backward country even prior to the dictatorship, was dully characterized as the “dungeon of nations”.
During the dictatorship, the activities of the Party were forced underground by brutal repression, the entire assets of the Party were confiscated, trade union associations and organising of workers strikes and demonstrations were also banned as illegal, all Party front organisations were banned as illegal, mass arrests commenced, thousands of communists were persecuted, imprisoned, tortured and killed, and the CPY received a heavy blow, which dramatically affected its organisational disunity. It is interesting to note that the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was the last country in Europe to recognise The Soviet Union (USSR). This only happened immediately before the outbreak of the war threat, in 1940. The CPY faced World War II as an underground movement, but it did not prevent it from being the organiser of the magnificent antifascist rebellion. In autumn of 1941, Yugoslav partisans controlled a free territory size of the contemporary Belgium, where November 7 – the Day of the Great October Revolution was publically celebrated.         
The October Revolution and Socialist Yugoslavia
Following a long period of dictatorship and after gruelling National Liberation Struggle during World War II, in which, according to the estimates, over 1,200,000 Yugoslavs were killed (among these a large number of prominent Party cadre –seasoned communists who experienced the period when the Party was forced to operate underground, the war in Spain, as well as our National Liberation Struggle), freedom and the victory of our revolution eventually arrived. The roads were paved for building a new society and a victory of a new man awakening from a long period of backwardness. The CPY succeeded in seizing power and proclaiming progressive goals amidst the new creative enthusiasm. Our society became a socialist society and the victories of radical changes materialised daily.
The achievements of the October Revolution were bright examples to a young socialist federal republic. The marking of the holiday dedicated to the October Revolution became a ceremony at the state level. The Yugoslav Party stood on the line of the proletariat internationalism and therefore “the significance of the Red October as the first stage of the world revolution and its powerful base for further development”1 played an important ideological part in the Party that had much yet to learn and to advance.
However, the tragic events of 1948 proved that little was learned and implemented. The CPY leadership, self-complacent with their own revolutionary sweep, and in reality incapable of applying the great ideas and implementing the goals set before them as the governing body of the Yugoslav proletariat, took the road of opportunism and alienation from the proletariat. The deformities within the state and social structures, i.e. their highest levels, became more and more visible, as the post-war period elapsed.
Parallel to this, in an increasingly unhealthy spiritual and ideological climate, the cult of Josip Broz Tito was being built. Many communists were elected for or excluded from the Central Committee of the Party without the Committee’s meeting. After 1940, The Central Committee of the Party met for the first time as late as in spring of 1948. All this led to a great doubt among the proletariat masses and the communists in the proper operation of the Central Committee and the Party leadership. As early as in the beginning of 1948, the growing divergence between the Soviet and Yugoslav leadership ensued. In June of 1948, the Bucharest meeting of the Information Bureau of the Communist and Workers’ Parties of Europe was held, when a resolution was passed calling on a self-criticism of the Yugoslav leaders and whereby many omissions and mistakes in the interior and international politics were pointed out. The Yugoslav leaders first decided not to attend the Information Bureau meeting and subsequently rejected the resolution in its entirety. The rejection of the resolution was confirmed in the Fifth Congress of the CPY, held on July 28, 1948. The delegates to the Congress had not been elected, but previously determined. In the concluding remarks of his speech, Tito stated that he and the CPY would remain unwaveringly loyal to Marx, Engels and Lenin’s teachings and to Stalin.
That fact contained the hypocrisy that would accompany the Yugoslav party, or rather the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, as the party was renamed in the Sixth Congress of 1952, along its historical path. The loyalty to the principles of scientific socialism, consistency and authenticity in addressing these principles, applied to the specific circumstances of Yugoslav experience of building socialism, would remain to a greater or lesser degree present as a declarative guideline. In reality, already from 1948 began the rapid divergence from the fundamental principles of the science established by the classics of the scientific socialism, the principles based on the experience of the proletariat struggle and confirmed in practice by the Great October Revolution.
Although Yugoslavia justifiably rejected the Marshall plan in 1947, seeing in it the most impressive instrument of the American doctrine of restraining communism, the Yugoslav leadership after the conflict with Stalin will start to receive first of all economic, and then military aid from the Americans in 1949. Available documents from the US archives witness that in exchange for the American aid, Yugoslavia was ready for the war with USSR.
During 1949 yugoslavian government participate in liquidation uprising of Democratic Army of Greece. In March 1949, Tsaldaris, as Minister of Foreign Affairs in Athens and diplomatic arch-blunderer, spilled the beans. Speaking at Corinth that the Daily Mail correspondent in Greece, during the celebration of the reopening of the Corinth canal, he said the correspondent, Paul King, who was standing nearby, and said, “Very soon the king Tito and be allies.” Just a few months later, in the summer of 1949, King Paul and Tito Maharaj showed on battlefields that have already been practically comrades-in-arms. They fought together against the Democratic Army of Greece. In fact, during the entire out imperialistic offensives last year against the Democratic Army of Greece defends Grarnmos and Vitsi, Tito gave the Greek bourgeoisie for the help that the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Greece, N. Zachariadis, put IT “had a decisive influence on the outcome of our armed struggle,” and finally forced the Greek liberation movement to a temporary withdrawal. Deputy Prime Minister of the Government of that time Athens, S Venizelos has publicly stated: “Without the help given to us by Yugoslavia, we could not be in a position to achieve such success.” I Agence France Presse, as stated in the works of 18 October 1949 in Athens, sent a telegram to the “diplomatic holiday in Washington believe Tito’s role in the development of the situation in Greece, as at least as a crucial economic and military assistance the US delivers the Greek Government “. In fact, Tito had not joined the imperialist camp, that he actively helped Greek bourgeoisie regime Athens would likely have failed so far.  “Tito knew that only if Monarch-Fascism can prevail in Greece, and the Greek Democratic Army was defeated, could provide your wallpaper and get help from the US and Britain.” (N. Zachariadis :. new situation, new tasks).
In the Sixth congress of the CPY, according to the personal confessions of Aleksandar Rankovic, who was practically the second most prominent figure of the Party at that time, from 1948 to 1952  the Party expelled 218,379 members who had been admitted to the CPY until spring of 1948. When we consider the fact that in the beginning of 1948 the CPY had 285,147 members, we can realise the scale of the putsch that had nothing to do with democratic principles of scientific socialism.
The earlier mentioned Sixth Congress confirmed the new direction of the party – “The socialist self-management”, under the veil of consistency to the interpretation of the works of classicists of scientific socialism Marx, Engels and Lenin (Stalin is no longer mentioned). This direction will be, until the breakup of Yugoslavia, the main ideological path. The term “self-management” has its long history in the labor movement in Yugoslavia. 140 years ago in Kragujevac (in 1876), a manifestation took place which is remembered in history under the name “Red banner”. On that day in February of 1876, the workers and other progressive people took to the streets to defend the victory in the elections won by the socialists. The red flag which was carried had the word “Self-management” printed on it. At the same time, that is the first important victory of the young labor movement. The Party ideologues tried to join the theory of scientific socialism with the new course of Yugoslavia in every way. The Paris commune was declared as the first practical attempt of the proletarian self-management, and Marks’s principle “association of independent producers” was declared as an ideal precisely in self-management in Yugoslavia. Self-management will represent the breakthrough of bourgeoisie ideology in the Yugoslav party and  set   out  in  quest  of  allegedly  new  «socialist»  roads,   which  were  capitalist  in  fact,   in  the   economy,    internal  and  foreign  policy,  education  and  culture,  and  in  all  sectors  of  life.
Self-management was first proscribed in the law from 1950, with the aim of proving that,unlike in Yugoslavia, there was no proper management of the working class, but rather of the bureaucrat class, in the USSR and other socialist countries.In reality, the law actually meant abandoning the planned economy and the beginning of breaking of the state property. Self-management meant transfer of the state wealth into the hands of a group of people and local administration onto which the stateimposed onlyfiscal obligations. This would lead to the reconstruction of bourgeois market principles in Yugoslavia, the anarchy in the relations of production, the introduction of the shareholder ownership instead of collective ownership and to a more pronounced uneven growth, which would result in unemployment, corruption, nationalism and subsequently secessionism.
The international politics that Yugoslavia led also meant undermining of basic principles that had triumphed during the Red October: of the proletarian internationalism. To a greater or lesser extent, depending on the period, Yugoslavia led an anti-Soviet policy. The Cold  War circumstances mirrored the class conflict and this war that was fought between socialist countries led by the USSR on one side and imperialistic countries on the other side, pushed Yugoslavia into the so-called “Non- Aligned”movement, one of whose ideological creators was Tito’s Yugoslavia itself. Non-alignment was the principal determinant of the Yugoslav international politics from the 1960s and the interpretation of the party’s internationalism. It was a classic example of the “third way” politics, whose reactionary essence had been explained by Lenin who had stated that the third way was there to indicate that there was no other way in relation to imperialism and exploitation.
The gradual reconstruction of capitalism in Yugoslavia will reach its complete form in the course of and upon the completion of the fratricidal wars on its territory, i.e. following its dissolution. Moving away from the principles of the October Revolution of the Yugoslav party will be one of the key factors in this process. This unfolded symbolically, too. The October Revolution and its relevance will have its place in Yugoslav socialism, but with constant revisions of its significance and its achievements. It is Illustrative to mention that early biographies of Josip Broz Tito emphasized his participation in the October events in Petersburg, since he was at that time in Russia as an Austro-Hungarian prisoner. His later biographies no longer contain such assertions.
Upon the temporary collapse of socialism in Yugoslavia
The October Revolution represents a hot and current topic even following the collapse of socialism, or at least of its relics on the territory of former Yugoslavia. The position of Yugoslavia and the historical development of our country against the October events in Petersburg do not cease to be a topic popular with the professional public, as well as the tabloid press. Needless to say, this topic is relevant as an example of historical revisionism.
After the reconstruction of capitalism in our country, the October Revolution started getting a highly negative connotation in the public sphere and among predominant attitudes of bourgeois intelligentsia and bourgeois media. These ideological attacks represent an integral part of severehistorical revisionism, i.e. forgery. Similar processes can be perceived to a greater or lesser extent in other former socialist countries in Eastern Europe and the USSR. We are going to mention some of the predominant postulates that do not cease to be ideological weapons used to primarily attack the conscience of working people.The aim is to create an image that working people cannot launch historical processes by themselves, that the basis of these are well-planned hidden interests of powerful figures from various spheres with their personal motives, who use working people as their puppets in order to realise the goals of different spheres of interests.
Let us list some of these “theories”:
– It is logical that Russia’s external adversaries and enemies were interested in a revolution. World War I was being fought, Russia was fighting Germany. Therefore, it is evident that the October Revolution was Germany’s interest and deed.
– The Russian Revolution of 1917 was a revolution instigated by American and European oil interests with the aim of taking control over Russian oil fields from the hands of the Rothschid-Nobel duo.
– The original organisers of the communist movement and the October Revolution were Jews, so the October Revolution was in fact a Jewish attempt to occupy Russia.
– The English Intelligence Service financed and carefully instructed Russian revolutionaries for years. Three out of five congresses of the Lenin’s party were held in London. Therefore, the Revolution was an act of English interests.  Anglo-Russian conflicts had lasted continuously since the Napoleon wars. Let us recall the Crimean War and the constant subversive role of the British diplomacy that thwarted the Russian attempts to occupy Constantinople on a number of occasions.
– A wide network of conspiratorial organisations, modelled against the Freemasonic lodges, operated in favour of the revolution in Russia and played a decisive part in constituting the first Provisional government and subsequently its breakdown and the triumph of the Bolshevik Revolution.
Being a turning point for the historical process that inspired and does not cease to inspire hundreds of millions of people, for the ruling class the October Revolution is a target that is legitimate to attack by all means. Those attacks are attacks on the conscience of the working man and are a part of the institutional framework of the official politics in our country. The October Revolution disappeared from the public sphere, which means that all streets, institutions, clubs, etc. that bore a name of or association to the October Revolution, have been renamed. School history textbooks regard this event as a turning point for “introducing a Bolshevik dictatorship” in their non-scientific interpretation.
NKPJ (The New Communist Party of Yugoslavia) and the October revolution
In difficult times before the breakup of Yugoslavia, in the situation of ideological disorientation of the working class and the culmination of anti-communist attacksunheard of since the period before WWII, a qualitative step forward in defending the achievements ofthe October revolution in Yugoslavia, their further affirmation, and setting them up as vital goals of our working class, was made by forming The New Communist Party of Yugoslavia in 1990. Libertarian, democratic, internationalist inspirations that have guided us in our work for twenty-six years, are incomplete without the inspiration we draw from the biggest event in the history of human civilization – the Great Socialist October Revolution. Our commitment torestoring the authentic principles of Marxism-Leninism, which have guided us since our founding, has set the legacy of the Great October Socialist Revolution as the highest priority in our party’s ideological orientation and practice.
Commemorative activities in the form of scientific, political, cultural and artistic events that we organize every year to mark the day of the October Revolution have become a tradition. They are the most solemn demonstration of our commitment to the work of scientific socialism and are regularly organized by our party.
However,even more important is the fact that our party constantly interprets the October events and their importance through our program, political views, public statements, activities, and in other ways. Thus, according to the stance of the NKPJ, the October Revolution was the mother of all the subsequent proletarian revolutions, it was carried out by the working class in alliance with the peasantry and the progressive intelligentsia, with the leading role of the Communist Party of Bolsheviks led by V. I. Lenin. Thanks to the success of the revolution and the subsequent victory in the Civil War, the USSR, the world’s first state of workers and peasants,was established. The NKPJ constantly reiterates that the success of the October Revolution proved the correctness of the Marxist-Leninist teachings about the inevitability of an overthrow of the bourgeoisie by a revolution, and the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat, the most democratic mode of social organization in the pre-communiststage, necessary for the successful establishment and development of socialism. The revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat represent only one stage in the process of class struggle that is continually unfolding as long as there are classes of capitalists and proletarians; this struggle is dynamic, it has its ups and downs, victories and defeats on both sides, but the Great October solidifiedthe inevitable fact that socialism is a legitimate stage in the development of human society.
Continuous inspiration for the new victories of the working man
The peoples of Yugoslavia madetheir contribution to creation of a new stage in the historical development of human civilization marked by the Red October. Our people enthusiastically received the news of the victory of the October Revolution in Russia,shoulder to shoulder with the international proletariat,and they also played their part both in the revolution and in spreading its flame throughout our region. Thus, the October Revolution, in addition to its historical and internationalist character and importance, became an importamt event in the national history of our people and an inspiration for political, historical, cultural and economic processes. It remains so, as enduring inspiration showing that the rule of workers and peasants is not merely a utopia and that opressors can be defeated andthat the suppressed can freethemselves from their shackles. The ideas of the October revolution remain an important example of libertarian inspiration for our freedom-loving people that in the whirlwinds of the world history have so often lost their freedom, independence and dignity which are still at stake and threatened by the interests of big imperialist powers for which the Balkans does not cease to be a sphere of great interest.
On the eve of the hundredth anniversary, the great anniversary of the October Revolution, despite all the problems that humanity faces today, we wish to highlight a new dose of optimism and pride, of revolutionary inspiration and the need for persistent and consistent struggle for the cause of the proletariat based on the most consistent principles –the principles of Marxism-Leninism. It is a historical inevitability and a certain fact that a counter-revolution is always followed by a new revolution, that the current defeats suffered by the mankind, and the proletariat in particular, are only a moment in time before a new episode when the working people will again seize power in our country as well, when the power will go to those who produce material and spiritual goods. Despite all the ups and downs, upsides and downsides that socialism has had in the past hundred years, it has proved to be a key prerequisite for the development and progress of human civilization in the modern epoch.
The future belongs to socialism!
KKE: Strong condemnation of the unhistorical anticommunist events of the EU in Estonia

Wednesday, August 23, 2017

KKE: Strong condemnation of the unhistorical anticommunist events of the EU in Estonia

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2017/08/kke-strong-condemnation-of-unhistorical.html

Statement by the Press Office of the CC of the Communist Party of Greece regarding the anticommunist events of the Estonian EU Presidency in Tallinn on August 23, 2017: 

“Tomorrow’s unhistorical anticommunist fiestas in Estonia consist a provocation for the millions of victims of nazism, for all the peoples of Europe who, through their struggle, wrote the heroic pages of the Antifascist Victory. They consist a provocation for the millions of communists, the fighters who contributed decisively to the crush of nazism-fascism.

These fiestas consist the continuation of similar events that take place during the last years under the auspices of the EU which, having anticommunist as its official policy and with large budgets, attempts to establish the 23rd August as a “European Day of Remembrance for the victims of totalitarian regimes”. Its major aim is the re-writing of the peoples’ history, the slandering of socialism, the unacceptable and unhistorical equation of communism with fascism-nazism. A basic aim is to hide that the power of monopolies, which in Germany took the form of Nazism, capitalism itself was overthrown in the USSR and in the other countries where the working class took the power; and, despite the weaknesses and serious mistakes the socialist construction moved on for decades. 
 
The anticommunist campaign of the EU, which goes hand by hand with the antipeople, antiworker attack, finds its best expression in Estonia and the other Baltic countries. The estonian bourgeois governments, with t he support of the EU and the USA, during the years that followed the overthrows in the socialist counties and the USSR’s dissolution, struggled to distort the historical truth.
 
It has been proved that the effort to equate communism with fascism aims in acquitting Nazism for its crimes. In Estonia, the murderers of the 20th estonian division of the Waffen SS, of the estonian SS which fought by the side of Nazi Germany are proclaimed “heroes” thus enjoying pensions and privileges, while the action of the Communist Party and the communist symbols are prohibited and the period when Estonian was part of the USSR is considered as “occupation”. The day of Estonia’s liberation from the Red Army and the Estonian partisans has been established as a “day of mourning” by today’s anti-communists and the descendants of the Nazi murderers.

What SYRIZA, New Democracy and the other parties say about the supposed “EU of peace, democracy, security, solidarity” is collapsing in Estonia and in other countries.

Estonian Fascists Celebrate Country’s
1944 Waffen SS Legion

The refusal of the SYRIZA-ANEL government to participate in tomorrow’s (Wednesday’s) events n Estonia is at least hypocritical, not only because it (the SYRIZA-ANEL government) had been officially represented in last year’s events in Bratislava, but also because it acquittes the EU of monopolies, which has anti-communism as her flag, the equation of communism with nazism. Besides, the slandering of socialism, of the entire socialist course of the Soviet Union by SYRIZA seconds the vulgar extreme anticommunism of New Democracy, PASOK and the other parties, alongside of course with the murderous Nazi Golden Dawn, as it has been expressed during the last days. 

One hundred years since the October Socialist Revolution, the peoples of Europe can draw conclusions. The strengthening of anticommunism proves that bourgeoisie and her staffs are trembling in front of the people and the perspective of its struggle; they hit at the communists because they are the bearers of the way out of the rotten exploitative system and its crises.

The people’s experience proves that escalation of anticommunism and all the outdated reactionary ideas is only a precursor of new anti-people measures and restriction of people’s rights, (a precursor) for the launch of a new round of imperialist wars and interventions against the peoples. 

For that reason, the struggle for the abolition of the anticommunist persecutions and restrictions, the struggle against anticommunism, for the satisfaction of the contemporary needs and rights of the people, is connected with the constant struggle for the workers power, for the liberation of the working class and the popular strata from the bonds of capitalism, from the exploitation which generates poverty, wars, nazism-fascism and its supporters”.

Source: 902.gr / Translation: In Defense of Communism.
Aleida Guevara: “The Cuban Revolution will endure because of social consciousness”

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Aleida Guevara: “The Cuban Revolution will endure because of social consciousness”

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2017/07/aleida-guevara-cuban-revolution-will.html

Major abstracts of an interview by Aleida Guevara, daughter of the heroic Comandante Ernesto Che Guevara, during her recent visit in Cyprus. The interview was published in the portal Dialogos / Translation in english: In Defense of Communism:

We talked about great personalities like Fidel, Che, Raul, Camilo. Their personalities frequently overshadow the Revolution of the Cuban people and the resistance which lasts for so many years. Something that imperialism feeds with illusions is (the perception) that the biological death of Fidel and Revolution’s leaders will result to her collapse. How do you comment? 
“It is exactly what they did for the people of Cuba that makes them so great revolutionaries. It is that they formated social consciousness also through their own personal example. For example my father set some basic points of reference of the Revolution. One thing he taught us is when we do not understand something, we have the tast to demand an explanation. Not to be afraid of saying what we think. Always with respect and earning the right to be heard. This is very important. Our young people have this educational method. We have full consciousness of the power we have as people. Because it is something more internal, many people do not know that is like that in Cuba.
It is difficult to understand the level of Cuban people’s consciousness. […] There is a large popular critique and our people have a big powers. They hear us. This is the important. The Revolution will endure after the biological absence of great people who led our people. We endured and resisted for many years, being so close to the largest imperialist center.
 
This didn’t happen due to a handful of revolutionaries. It happened because of the developed social consciousness of our people. The people decided and knows what they want. I wouldn’t like to be in the position of the one who will lead the people after the historic leadership of the Revolution, because of the obvious comparison with Fidel. It will be difficult, but the important is the will power of the people and the dedication by the CP of Cuba (PCC).”
Regarding the changes in Cuba’s socialist system, Aleida Guevara said:
 
“There has been much criticism. The PCC prepared a series of issues. These issues were analysed by the people in every workplace, in schools, universities, everywhere. The people expressed their view. The National Assembly of People’s Power recently adopted the final document with over 1,800 modifications made by the Cuban people. The changes in the first text were made through the popular participatory democracy and that is what the Parliament verified. We are very critical as a people. We have the political education to do something like that. Therefore, what will happen is a decision taken by the people.”
In the question about the U.S policy towards Cuba and how she evaluates Trump’s announcements on Cuba, Dr. Guevara mentioned the following:
 
“Obama “varnished” a bit the aggressiveness of the USA, but the worst sanctions of Washington against our people were set during Obama’s period. He was simply a clever politician and presented himself as someone who wanted “changes”. In tactics, not in strategy. Obama’s aim remained the overthrow of the Revolution. The same policy continues and Trump is simply rougher. He proved that when he made the statements alongside the US-funded anti-Cuban mafia of Miami. Alongside terrorists and murderers. And on that point I must say that not all Cubans living in the USA are enemies of our people, like the members of this reactionary and terrorist mafia. The aim of the USA were always the same against our people. Trump simply returned to the face of the previous US Presidents. We aren’t worried. Everyone knows that our people kneels only to pay tribute to the heroes of independence and Revolution. Our struggle continues. They gave us more strength. Maybe it is even better, because many were “drifted” with Obama. They thought that there was a change. They wrongfully thought that the blockade was ended. Exactly the opposite took place. Obama was probably the worst clamp upon Cuban economy. Our people and all the people must remember what Che was saying about imperialism: You can’t trust him at all.”
 
 
Aleida also talked about Che’s admiration for the Soviet people, his affection for reading and studying. Among other things she said:
 
“My father was always a critical person. He was applying the same with the Soviet Union, but with much respect towards the Soviet people who he admired and respected also for his role in the international level”.
 
“In order to exercise critique you have to study a lot. My father was very well-read. He studied and talked with Mao Zedong himself and he could discuss in a documented way with him. That was an advantage of Che. He wasn’t criticizing without reason. If we was criticizing something, that was because he had searched and found answers. That’s why his critique was constructive and he was treated with respect”.
 
Dr. Aleida Guevara mentioned her participation in medical brigades, where she offered her skills and knowledge, like for example in Angola. This experience, she said, strengthened her anti-racist views: “I am a pediatrician and I saw children dying, while I could save them if I had enough medicines. This is unjust. If a child is black or lives in this planet’s south, does it mean it must be condemned to death? There isn’t any right in this situation. That is why I react in everything racist and colonial and I will fight against these until my last breath”.
“Cuba remains a symbol of Socialism. She proves that with her internationalist solidarity. What makes Cuba special? Socialism and our values. The fact that human is above everything. For example, when the Ebola virus broke out in Africa, the WHO (World Health Organisation) did not call a developed capitalist country. It didn’t call the USA or the EU. It called Cuba. And the Cuban doctors stopped this epidemic which would be dangerous for the whole world. Socialist Cuba taught us to be ready to sacrifice ourselves in order to save lifes and help humanity. And the example of Cuba is very significant, because it shows that if we- a poor people- can be against american imperialism, then every people can do it.”
 
KKE politburo member G.Marinos in Venezuela: “We must walk in the steps of the October Revolution”

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

KKE politburo member G.Marinos in Venezuela: “We must walk in the steps of the October Revolution”

In the 15th Congress of the Communist Party of Venezuela (PCV) which took place between 22 and 25th of June in Caracas, the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) was represented by its Political Bureau member Giorgos Marinos and Dimitris Karagiannis, member of the international relations section of the CC and journalist in ‘Rizospastis’. 

 
On June 21st, the PCV organised the 2nd International Ideological Seminar with the subject being “The timeliness of Lenin in the 100 years of the Great Socialist Revolution”, in which 18 Communist and Workers Parties participated.
 
What follows is the speech by Giorgos Marinos, reproduced from inter.kke.gr:
We honour the 100th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, of the world-historic event of international significance, which demonstrated that capitalism is not invincible. The working class, the leading class of society with its allies have the strength to overthrow capitalism and construct the socialist society.
Whatever the supporters and apologists of capitalism do, they cannot erase the fact that this system has already entered a course of degeneration and decay, is becoming more reactionary and dangerous, is identified with the poverty of millions, with unemployment and capitalist crises.
Whatever the apologists of the system do, they cannot conceal the fact that two world imperialist wars were created by capitalism, as well as hundreds of local and regional wars and today we see the danger of a generalized military conflict.
The persecutions against communists and militant workers cannot stop the forward march of history. Social development does not stop, it is an objective process where the new social relations and the leading classes that express them in the class struggle, the motor force of history, overthrow the old social relations.
However painful the consequences of the counterrevolution are, the Leninist position is still of great importance: “We have made the start. When, at what date and time, and the proletarians of which nation will complete this process is not important. The important thing is that the ice has been broken; the road is open, the way has been shown.”
We struggle in the conditions of monopoly capitalism, imperialism, with its basic characteristic being the dominance of the monopolies, which are the product of the concentration and centralization of capital.
At the end of the 19th century, Marx and Engels had already noted in Capital that the “centralization of the means of production and socialization of labour at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. Thus integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.”
This is the great necessity. The abolition of private capitalist ownership that negates the potential for all the workers to live in conditions that correspond to their increasing human needs, with work, free time, housing, high level exclusively public and free education, health, welfare, culture, sports.
The necessity of socialism flows from the sharpening of the basic contradiction of system, the contradiction between the social character of production and labour and the capitalist appropriation of the results. Our era is the era of transition from capitalism to socialism and this has historical and international dimensions.
However, as the experience from the class struggle teaches us, despite the fact that the material conditions for the new society mature under capitalism, for there to be a change of system there must be a socialist revolution.
This revolution requires the creation of a revolutionary situation that is defined according to Lenin by the following factors:
  • Those “above” (the ruling class of the capitalists) cannot govern and run the administration as they did in the past.
  • Those “below” (the working class and the popular strata) do not want to live as they did in the past.
  • An extraordinary rise in the activity of masses is observed.
The appearance of such a favourable situation has an objective character, but each revolutionary situation must be combined with the revolutionary uprising of the working class, led by the CP, its conscious vanguard, which must be equipped with the Marxist-Leninist worldview and be capable of leading the socialist revolution.
Despite the fact that it cannot be predicted when and how the revolutionary situation will manifest itself, historical experience highlighted the manifestation of a deep and synchronized capitalist crisis, combined with the outbreak of an imperialist war as being important factors.
The course of the Bolsheviks to the victorious October revolution passed through the “fire” of the harsh persecutions of the Tsarist absolutist state, of the strike and other tough conflicts connected to the revolution of 1905, which despite its defeat was a trial that contributed to the preparation of the oppressed for the victory of the revolution.
The Soviets were born in the revolution of 1905, the seeds of workers’ power.
In this period, Lenin assessed that the revolution should establish a temporary revolutionary government, the “democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry”, for the convening of the constituent assembly, universal voting rights, agricultural reforms etc. This power would eradicate the vestiges of Tsarism and would spark the proletarian revolution in the advanced capitalist Western Europe.
The entrance of Russia in the 1st World War sharpened the social contradictions. The defeats of the Russian army at the front, the loss of territories caused significant discontent, not only amongst the workers and peasants who were suffering due to the destruction of war, but also amongst the bourgeois class of Russia.
The plans of the bourgeoisie to overthrow the Tsar were combined with major popular mobilizations and strikes, which were carried out in February 1917, as a result of the rapid intensification of the social problems. The formation of a revolutionary situation, the mass political activity of the workers and peasants organized in the Soviets, the disintegration of the army, led in the end to the revolutionary overthrow of the Tsar.
The Provisional Democratic Government was established by representatives of the bourgeois liberal parties of Russia and constituted an organ of bourgeois power. At the same time,however, the mass political struggle of the workers and peasants brought to the surface the organization of the armed masses that participated in the overthrow of the Tsar via the Soviets.
The Mensheviks and the SRs dominated the Soviets in this period and supported the Provisional Democratic Government. This situation was characterized by Lenin as being “dual power”.
Lenin studied the February revolution, assessed that power had passed into the hands of the bourgeois class and that the bourgeois-democratic revolution had been completed and with the “April Theses” he adjusted the strategy of the Bolsheviks for the overthrow of bourgeois power and the socialist revolution.
The adaptation of the tactics, the slogans to the needs of strategy and of the revolutionary struggle led Lenin to withdraw the slogan “All power to the Soviets” in July 1917, when the repression of the Provisional Government had escalated and brought it back in September when the Bolsheviks had won the majority in the Soviets of Moscow and Petrograd, giving it new content, as a slogan for the overthrow of the Provisional Government and the revolutionary uprising.
The decisiveness of Lenin and those from the leadership of the Bolsheviks who supported his positions led in the end to the victorious socialist revolution on October 25 (November 7, according to the new calendar) 1917.
We must underline the decisive importance of the important events and political choices, such as:
  • The separation of the Bolsheviks from the Mensheviks at the 2nd Congress (1903), the formation of a separate party (1912), the intense constant struggle against opportunism.
  • The systematic theoretical efforts for the development of the strategic view of the Bolshevik party for the socialist revolution that matured in the difficult conditions of the 1905-1917 period.
  • The tireless efforts for the preparation of the subjective factor, the party, the working class and its allies.
  • The consistent communist stance against imperialist war and the tireless struggle against the bourgeois class in all conditions.
  • The prediction of the changes in the correlation of forces and the correct decisions gave the Bolsheviks the initiative.
A decisive contribution for the formation of the strategy of the socialist revolution was provided by the study of capitalism in Tsarist Russia, of the characteristics of monopoly capitalism-imperialism (in the work “Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism”), of the stance towards the bourgeois state and the character of workers’ power, i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat (“State and Revolution”) and other valuable works.
These elaborations highlighted the potential for the socialization of the concentrated means of production in the era of monopoly capitalism and also the potential created by uneven economic-political development and the sharpening of the inter-imperialist contradictions in order for the weakest link in the imperialist chain to break and for the efforts for socialist construction in one country or in a group of countries to begin.
Soviet power paved the way for the abolition of capitalist relations of production and this was what dealt with the intense problems of the workers (land, bread, peace) and not bourgeois power or some form of “intermediate” power, which in reality cannot exist.
Giorgos Marinos (Archive Photo).
The October Revolution confirmed the leading role of the revolutionary communist party, the need to rally the working class against the power of capital, the need to draw the poor peasantry and the other middle strata to the revolution, and to render other sections neutral. The historically outdated and reactionary character of the bourgeois class, the necessity of not participating or supporting a government in the framework of capitalism, the non-existence of transitional forms of power between capitalism and socialism, the need to smash the bourgeois state.
The October Revolution led to the building of another superior society, with as its basic characteristic the abolition of the exploitation of man by man.
The right to work and the eradication of unemployment were secured in the USSR. The foundations were laid for the abolition of discrimination against women. Science developed very rapidly. Free education at all levels, free high-quality health-care for all the people, and universal access to culture and sports were ensured. Institutions were created that would safeguard the substantial participation of the workers in building the new society.
This was a historically significant leap in conditions of the backwardness of pre-revolutionary Russia in comparison to the powerful capitalist states, in conditions of imperialist encirclement and pressure, with the grave consequences from the 1st and 2nd World Wars, in the latter the USSR made the decisive contribution to the defeat of fascism, with 20 million dead and enormous material destruction.
Socialist construction in the USSR was not free of problems. Until the Second World War, in the USSR the struggle for the development of the communist relations of production, the abolition of wage labour and the dominance of the socialized sector of production on the basis of Central Planning was generally successful.
After the Second World War, socialist construction faced new challenges and demands that were interpreted as inevitable weaknesses existing in the nature of central planning and not as a result of the contradictions of the survival of the old, as a result of the mistakes of the non-scientifically elaborated plan.
Thus, instead of seeking a solution towards the invigoration and expansion of the communist relations of production and distribution, it was sought backwards, i.e. in the exploitation of tools and production relations of capitalism. The solution was sought in the expansion of the market, in “market socialism”.
The 20th CPSU Congress (1956) stands out as a turning point because in that, with the vehicle being the so-called “personality cult”, a series of opportunist positions were adopted on the issues of the communist movement strategy, while the central management of the economy was weakened.
A few years later, beginning with the so-called “Kosygin reforms” (1965), the bourgeois category of “business profit” of each individual production unit was adopted and the wages of managers and workers were linked to it.
The individual interest was strengthened at the expense of the social interest and the communist consciousness was damaged. The so-called “shadow capital” emerged that sought its legal function as capital in production, the restoration of capitalism. Its (the capital’s) owners constituted the driving force of the counter-revolution.
In about the same period, the Marxist-Leninist perception about the workers’ state was also revised. The 22nd Congress of the CPSU (1961) described the USSR state as an “all-people’s” state and the CPSU as an “all-people’s party”.These positions led to the mutation of the revolutionary characteristics and social composition of the party. The transformation of the CPSU’s opportunist degeneration into an open counter-revolutionary force was manifested by the policy of “Perestroika” and “Glasnost”.
The KKE tried all these years to study the contemporary developments, to draw conclusions from the historical experience of the class struggle in Greece and internationally and, at the same time, to deepen and expand its militant ties with the working class and the popular strata. It tries not to detach the daily struggle from the main revolutionary political task of overthrowing the power of capital
he KKE has charted a modern revolutionary strategy increases its ability to organize leading sites of resistance and counterattack in every sector of the economy, every large workplace, in every region of the country,with an anti-capitalist/anti-monopoly line of struggle, to prepare the working class and people in the instance of an imperialist war.
The ideological-political and organizational strengthening of the KKE, which was an important issue at the recent 20th Congress of the Party, constitutes a prerequisite for the promotion of its revolutionary policy.
An integral part of the KKE’s contemporary strategy is its programmatic perception on the socialist character of the revolution. Socialist construction begins with the revolutionary conquest of power by the working class. The workers’ state, the dictatorship of the proletariat, is an instrument of the working class in the class struggle which continues in socialism with other forms and means. It is utilized for the planned development of the new social relations, which presupposes the suppression of the counter-revolutionary efforts, but also the development of the communist consciousness of the working class. The qualitatively new feature of workers’ power is the transformation of the workplace into the core of society’s organization.
The Programme of the KKE states:
The concentrated means of production are socialized, but initially there remain forms of individual and group ownership that constitute the basis for the existence of commodity-money relation. Forms of productive cooperatives are formed, where the level of the forces of production still does not allow the socialization of the means of production. The forms of group ownership consist a transitional form of ownership, between the private and the social one, and not an immature form of communist relations.
On the basis of social ownership of the centralized means of production, the central planning of the economy develops as a communist relation that connects all the producers.
At the same time, the KKE struggles for the regroupment of the international communist movement, according to the principles of proletarian internationalism, the internationalist solidarity of the people against capitalism and imperialist war, which is expressed in the slogan “Workers of all countries unite!”.Its supports the efforts for the creation of a distinct pole based on the principles of Marxism-Leninism , through the “International Communist Review” and the European Communist Initiative.
The study of the experience of the October Revolution and the events that will be held will be effective to the extent that the communist movement stands up and fights against the negative correlation of forces, examining in a strict way and changing the line of intermediate stages and the so-called leftwing governments. This step will contribute decisively to the adaptation of the strategy of the CPs to the character of our era, the era of the transition from capitalism to socialism, which also determines the socialist character of the revolution.
The struggle for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, for the socialist revolution must leave its imprint on the everyday activity, political line of every CP so that they play the leading role in organizing the working class, to preparing it to meet the challenges of the class struggle.
This year, 100 years after the Great October Revolution, we must intensify our efforts to strengthen the struggle for the revolutionary regroupment of the international communist movement.
The October Revolution, the construction of socialism in the USSR and the painful experience from the counterrevolution highlights the need for a revolutionary strategy and the strict observance of the laws of socialist construction, for workers’ power, the socialization of the means of production, central planning and workers’-social control. This is the basis for the abolition of the exploitation of man by man, in opposition to the caricatures and arbitrary fantasies about “21st Century Socialism” and “Market Socialism” which are features of the counterrevolution and function within the the framework of capitalism.
The communist movement has a great history and has made a significant contribution to the abolition of exploitation and today must learn from history, must be guided by our worldview and what Marx and Engels wrote in 1848 remains very relevant:
“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workers of All Countries, Unite!”
 
We thank the CP of Venezuela and we wish it every success in its Congress. The KKE has always stood unwaveringly at the side of the CP of Venezuela and continues on this path. Our party denounces the imperialist interventions and expresses its internationalist solidarity with the working class, the people of Venezuela and the other countries of Latin America. The interests of the working class lie in strengthening its struggle against the bourgeois class and the capitalist shackles, in fighting for worker’s power and to become the owners of the wealth they produce, in constructing socialism-communism.
DECLARATION OF THE CC OF THE KKE ON THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE GREAT OCTOBER SOCIALIST REVOLUTION

Thursday, July 6, 2017

DECLARATION OF THE CC OF THE KKE ON THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE GREAT OCTOBER SOCIALIST REVOLUTION

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2017/07/declaration-of-cc-of-kke-on-100th.html
Declaration of the Central Committee of the KKE on the 100th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution   Source: inter.kke.gr.
The Central Committee of the KKE honours the 100th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution. It honours the climactic world-historic event of the 20th century which demonstrated that capitalism is not invincible, that we can construct a superior organization of society, without the exploitation of man by man.
The October Revolution highlighted the strength of the revolutionary class struggle, the strength of the exploited and oppressed, when they take centre stage and turn the wheel of history forwards in the direction of social liberation. In historical terms, it was the continuation of the uprisings of the slaves, of the peasants in the Middle Ages, of the bourgeois revolutions, but it also constituted the climax of this process and went beyond it, as for the first time the goal of the revolution was the abolition of the exploitative class society. 46 years after the “storming of the heavens” by the heroic Paris Commune, the Russian working class through the October revolution came to incarnate the vision of the working class-popular masses, millions of people, for a better life.
The October Revolution demonstrated the correctness of the Leninist analysis that the victory of socialism is possible in one country or a group of countries, as a consequence of the uneven development of capitalism.
October 1917 was an event of global and lasting significance. It confirmed the potential of the working class (as a social force that can and must lead the revolutionary struggle, for a society without exploitation, insecurity, poverty, unemployment and wars) to fulfill its historic mission. It also confirmed that the realization of the historic mission of the working class is not determined by its percentage in the economically active population, but by the fact that it is the vehicle for the new socialist relations of production.
At the same time, October highlighted the irreplaceable role of the revolutionary political vanguard, the communist party, as the leading factor not only in the socialist revolution, but also during the entire struggle for the formation, strengthening, and final victory of the new communist society.
The flame of October led to and accelerated the establishment of a number of communist parties, revolutionary workers’ parties of a new type, in opposition to the social-democratic parties of this era, which had betrayed the working class and revolutionary politics, choosing the path of the co-option of the labour movement under the banner of the bourgeois class, as well as the support for the imperialist military assault against the young workers’ state in Russia.
The victorious October Revolution was the continuation of all the previous workers’ uprisings and paved the way for the historical passage of humanity “from the Kingdom of Necessity to the Kingdom of Freedom.” Codifying its historic importance, Lenin wrote:
“We have made the start. When, at what date and time, and the proletarians of which nation will complete this process is not important. The important thing is that the ice has been broken; the road is open, the way has been shown.”
The lessons of October are of particular importance today when the wheel of history seems to be moving backwards, today when the international communist movement is in conditions of crisis and retreat, today when the long-term consequences of the counterrevolution (since the beginning of the 1990s) are reinforcing the mistaken view held by many workers that there is no alternative solution to capitalism.
Historical development itself helps us expose the bourgeois propaganda that claims that the socialist-communist project had a utopian character. No socio-economic system in the history of humanity was established in one moment, once and for all, with a linear course of victories of those class forces that were the vehicles of social progress in each specific phase. After the great slave uprising, Spartacus was crucified, but slavery eventually passed into history. After the French bourgeois revolution of 1789, Robespierre was guillotined, but feudalism’s days were numbered.
The bourgeois class deliberately conceals the fact that it took about 4 centuries to consolidate its power. It took several centuries, from the first attempts of the bourgeoisie in the trading cities of Northern Italy in the 14th century to the bourgeois revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries, until capitalist relations had developed to a satisfactory level so that it could impose the complete abolition of feudal relations of production. The political defeats suffered by the bourgeois class in this period do not negate the fact that its was historically necessary for the outdated relations of production between the landowner and the serf to be replaced by bourgeois relations between the capitalist and the worker.
The political representatives of the bourgeois class vainly claim that capitalism is irreplaceable, eternal and that the revolutionary class struggle is no longer the instrument for historical development.
The decades-long existence and successes of the socialist society, which was inaugurated by the October Revolution, demonstrated that a society without bosses, without capitalists owning the means of production is possible. This conclusion is not negated by the fact that in this specific phase it was not able to defeat once and for all capitalist ownership and capitalist profit.

SOCIALISM REMAINS NECESSARY, TIMELY AND REALISTIC

The necessity and timeliness of socialism, the potential of abolishing private ownership over the concentrated means of production flow from the development of capitalism which leads to the concentration of production. Capitalist ownership puts a brake on the social character of production. Capitalist ownership cancels out the potential for all workers to live in better socially organized conditions that correspond to their increased human needs:so that all have work without the nightmare of unemployment, working for less hours, enjoying a better standard of living, with a high level of exclusively public and free education and similar services in health and welfare.
The working class creates these possibilities through its work inside capitalism, possibilities which are expanded by the development of science and technology. However, in a society where everything that is produced is determined on the basis of private, capitalist profit, the needs of the working class and the popular strata are crushed. The essence of the problem is that those who produce are not those who decide on the goals and organization of production. The cyclical economic crises are in the DNA of capitalism and are becoming increasingly deep and synchronized, resulting in the sharp increase of unemployment, the further expansion of badly paid work without social security cover, life with rights hat have been destroyed, with imperialist wars for the division of markets and territories.
The deterioration of the working and living conditions, despite the rise of labour productivity, concerns the entire capitalist world and indeed the most developed capitalist states. The capitalist states themselves, their research centres, admit that the workers’ income is shrinking, while the wealth of the capitalists is increasing.
Just as in the previous periods of social revolutions, a decisive factor today for the corrosion of the strength of the old exploitative system is always its internal contradictions and their intensification.
This provides the potential for the development and escalation of the class struggle and its acquisition of a revolutionary character. Today, in the era of monopoly capitalism, the basic contradiction of the system is sharpening, while labour and production have been socialized to unprecedented levels, the largest part of their results are enjoyed by the shareholders of the business groups. These are the big shareholders-parasites of economic life, who despite being surplus to the organization and direction of production, exploit the working class. Shareholders who often do not know what the companies they have shares in and receive dividends from produce or where they are located.
At the same time as the dominance of the monopoly groups, there the trend to relative stagnancy is being reinforced, i.e stagnancy in relation to the potential and dynamism created by the current level of development of the productive forces, in relation to what could be produced quantitatively and qualitatively if society removed profit as the motor force of production. Features of parasitism and relative stagnancy are:the so-called in-built obsolescence of commodities (the use of scientific knowledge to limit the life-span of products), the restrictions on the spread of technology due to the patents owned by the business groups, the underdevelopment for various periods of time of sectors that are not profitable enough (e.g. anti-earthquake protection), the destruction of the environment due its irrational utilization for the maximization of capitalist profits, the enormous spending on scientific research for the production of weapons and means of repression etc.
Today, the negative correlation of forces for the working class reproduces the impression (due to the dominance of bourgeois ideology) that the power and aggression of capital are invincible. However, it cannot conceal the decay of capitalism and the objective potential for the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production, for their socialization by workers’ power and their utilization on the basis of central planning and the benefit of society.
The entire history of the October Revolution and what preceded it demonstrate that the negative correlation of forces is not eternal and unchanging.

THE APPEARANCE OF FAVOURABLE CONDITIONS FOR THE REVOLUTIONARY UPHEAVAL

The fact that the preconditions have been formed for the construction of the socialist-communist society does not automatically entail its realization. An important reason for this is the fact that, in contrast with the laws of nature, social progress requires the relevant activity of humans, in this case the class struggle for the abolition of the old society and the construction of the new one.
The outbreak of the socialist revolution (just as every social revolution in human history) presupposes the emergence of a situation where the ability of the ruling class to co-opt, repress and subdue the people is weakened.
Lenin formulated the definition of the revolutionary situation and identified the main objective and subjective characteristics, which are are accumulated in society on the eve of the revolution.
-Those “above” (the ruling class of the capitalists) cannot govern and run the administration as they did in the past.
-Those “below” (the working class and the popular strata) do not want to live as they did in the past.
-An extraordinary rise in the activity of masses is observed.
Thus, the destitution of those “below” and their discontent increases their political activity, while confusion, weakness, contradictions, indecisiveness prevail amongst those “above”.
The emergence of such a favourable situation for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalist society has an objective character; it flows from the sudden sharpening of its contradictions.
However, as Lenin aptly stressed, this does not means that every revolutionary situation is converted into a revolution. Neither the reaction of those below, nor the crisis of those above will trigger the overthrow, if there is not a planned revolutionary uprising of the working class, led by its conscious vanguard.
In other words, for a workers’ revolution to break out there must be the presence of the revolutionary political vanguard, the communist party, equipped with the theoretical elaborations and ability to predict the developments, based on the Marxist-Leninist world-view and capable of leading the revolutionary uprising of the working class.
Of course, it is not possible to predict all the factors that can lead to a revolutionary situation. Historical experience highlighted the manifestation of a deep and synchronized capitalist crisis, combined with the outbreak of an imperialist war as being important factors.
The first victorious workers’ revolution in Russia was the result of the ability of the working class, guided by its party, to undertake this role in similar conditions. Lenin successfully predicted the potential for a revolutionary situation in Russia, the possibility of Russia emerging as the weak link in the imperialist chain in the conditions of the 1st World War.

THE COURSE OF THE BOLSHEVIKS TO THE VICTORY IN OCTOBER 1917

In Tsarist Russia before the First World War, there survived intense features of the old absolutist state, headed by the Tsar, even if capitalism was rapidly developing. There existed a vast mass of peasants/small producers in the countryside, who were tormented by the significant vestiges of feudal relations.
The revolution of 1905-1907 led to the formation of the State Duma, i.e. a form of legislative representative institution with very limited rights, which in no sense meant the transition to a formal bourgeois parliamentary system. The institution of the Duma expressed a compromise between sections of the bourgeois class and the Tsarist regime. In the countryside, despite the fact that serfdom in Russia formally had been abolished since 1861, large sections of the peasants suffered from the oppression of the big landowners, who forced them to do chores for them or to hand over half their crops.
In the period of the 1905 revolution, the Soviets were born as organs for the organization of the revolutionary activity of the working class inside the conditions of the intensifying strike struggles and class confrontations. They constituted a new form of organization of the working class with elected delegates and functioned as the seeds and forms of the future workers’ power.
The creation of enormous factories in the key centres of the major Russian cities, like Moscow and Petrograd (later renamed Leningrad), led to a significant growth of wage labour, rendering the working class the basic social force in the country, despite the fact that it was not a majority of the total population of the Tsarist empire.
In these complex conditions, the Bolsheviks formed a strategic line that aimed, through the development of the class struggle, to safeguard two things: a) the political independence of the working class in the impending bourgeois-democratic revolution so that the proletariat would not be transformed into the tail of the bourgeoisie. b) the leadership of the entire people’s movement by the working class (i.e. the social alliance of the proletariat with the small and medium peasants) so that the revolution could have a radical character in relation to the historical era and facilitate the transition to the socialist revolution. Consequently, in the struggle to win the peasantry over to the side of the working class, the strategy of the Bolsheviks was based on the line: together with all the peasants against the Middle Ages. And then later on, together with the poor peasants, together with the semi-proletarians against capitalism, and together against the rich in the villages.
This strategy was based on the assessment that the objective development of capitalism in Russia came into contradiction with the backward political superstructure of Tsarism and with the maintenance of the vestiges of serfdom in the countryside and also on the idea of a revolutionary process at a European level. At the same time, the bourgeois class of 1905 was no longer the progressive bourgeois class of the era of the bourgeois revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries. In any case, capitalism had now passed at a global level into the reactionary era of imperialism. It was more afraid than desirous of a political revolution, as its rival class, the working class, had established itself as an independent political force.
Consequently, Lenin assessed that the revolution should establish a temporary revolutionary government, the “democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry”, which would implement what was contained in the “minimum” programme of the Bolsheviks (constituent assembly, universal voting rights, agricultural reforms etc.)This power would eradicate the vestiges of Tsarism, while it would spark the proletarian revolution in the advanced capitalist Western Europe, which would in turn support the proletarian revolution in Russia. The Bolsheviks in this period connected the bourgeois-democratic revolution with the socialist revolution and stressed the defense of the specific interests of the working class and the need to exert constant pressure on the revolutionary government to extend the gains of the revolution.
The “democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry”, as Lenin said, could have a unified outlook in terms of smashing absolutism, but not in terms of socialism. As the revolution would develop, Lenin predicted that struggle within the alliance and within the governance of the workers and peasants itself would sharpen and would lead finally to the full separation of the working class from the medium and rich peasants, aiming at the domination of the proletarian elements over the petty bourgeois ones and the transition to the “dictatorship of the proletariat”.
This line of the Bolsheviks was formed in opposition to the right opportunists of the era, the Mensheviks, and also in opposition to Trotsky who underestimated the role and significance of the peasantry. Lenin assessed that Trotsky’s position would have led to the “denial of the role of the peasantry” and the crippling of the revolution.
The entrance of Russia in the 1st World War sharpened the social contradictions. The repeated defeats of the Russian army at the front, the loss of territories (e.g. Poland, Baltic countries) caused significant discontent, not only amongst the workers and peasants who were suffering due to the destruction of war, but also amongst the bourgeois class of Russia. The fact the mechanisms of Tsarism started to orient towards Germany and the possibility of signing a separate peace with it triggered the reaction of the bourgeoisie, a reaction that was supported by Britain and France and led to the organization of plans to overthrow the Tsar. In 1916, simultaneous uprisings of various nationalities broke out in the Caucasus and Central Asia against the Tsarist empire.
The plans of the bourgeoisie to overthrow the Tsar were combined with major popular mobilizations and strikes, which were carried out in February 1917, as a result of the lack of food, mass unemployment and rapid intensification of the social problems. The formation of a revolutionary situation, the mass political activity of the workers and peasants organized in the Soviets, the disintegration of the army, led in the end to the revolutionary overthrow of the Tsar.
The revolutionary situation was created on the terrain of a complex process that contained a number of important factors: the sharpening of the inter-imperialist antagonisms, the problems that the imperialist war had created for the popular strata over the 3 previous years, the disturbance of Tsarism’s alliance with the bourgeoisie, which no longer allowed those ‘above” to govern as before, the political and organizational work of the Bolsheviks before and during the war in the ranks of the working class and the soldiers.
The sudden intensification of the contradictions between the bourgeoisie and Tsarism in the conditions of crisis and imperialist war, the inevitability of which had been underscored by the Bolsheviks, resulted in the bourgeoisie taking the upper hand in the February Revolution.
The Provisional Democratic Government was established by representatives of the bourgeois liberal parties of Russia and constituted an organ of bourgeois power. At the same time, the mass political struggle of the workers and peasants brought to the surface the organization of the armed masses that participated in the overthrow of the Tsar via the Soviets (councils of delegates).
The Mensheviks (opportunist current) and the SRs (“petty bourgeois socialist revolutionaries”) dominated the Soviets in this period and posed the issue of supporting the Provisional Democratic Government. So, a situation emerged that Lenin characterized as “dual power”, in order to describe a transitional moment in the revolutionary process, where the bourgeois class has the power, but is not so strong as to be able to disperse the organization of the people’s masses that were armed (e.g. the Soviets had their own guards).
Lenin, understanding the compromise between the Provisional Democratic Government and the Soviets, considered that a specific political line should be implemented in order to convince the workers through their own experience for the need:
a) To not provide support to the Provisional Democratic Government, which was the government of the bourgeois class.
b) To understand that the war which was continuing was imperialist, predatory and unjust.
c) To abandon the Mensheviks and SRs in order to change the correlation of forces in favour of the Bolsheviks in the Soviets.
d) For the Soviets to take power as a precondition for the solution of all the pressing demands of the popular strata (peace, land, bread).
In the well-known “April Theses” and in his other works from this period, Lenin made a very clear assessment of the character of the February Revolution. He assessed that power changed hands, passed into the hands of the bourgeois class. He bore in mind that the basic issue in the strategy of the Bolsheviks’ strategy until then, the issue of the social alliance of the workers and peasants, had already been realized in the form of the Soviets, irrespective of the fact that in their majority of the proletariat were disorientated and trusted the representatives of the petty bourgeois strata, who acted as the tail of the bourgeoisie.
Against the position of the “Old Bolsheviks” (Kamenev, Zinoviev etc.)that the bourgeois democratic revolution had not been completed and a number of goals had not been realized (e.g. Constituent Assembly, agricultural reforms), Lenin responded that the main issue in each revolution is the issue of power. In this sense, the bourgeois-democratic revolution had been completed.
So a change in the strategy of the Bolsheviks was required. From February onwards, the first and basic issue that had to be solved was the raising of the consciousness of the proletariat, the winning of its vanguard position inside the framework of the social alliance. This required struggle inside the revolutionary organs themselves (Soviets), the rallying with the semi-proletarians and poor peasantry in order to prepare the ground for the socialist revolution.
When the Provisional Democratic Government carried out harsh repressive measures against the Bolsheviks and the labour movement in July, the Bolsheviks withdrew the slogan “All power to the Soviets.” Lenin in this crucial period and especially after the outbreak of the military coup d’etat of Kornilov predicted that the objective situation would lead either to the completion of the victory of the bourgeois military dictatorship or to the victory of the armed uprising of the workers. He intensified the ideological struggle against the illusions concerning a peaceful parliamentary transition to socialism and declared that the goal of the armed uprising could only be the conquest of power by the proletariat, with the support of the poor peasantry, for the realization of the programmatic goals of the party.
In September 1917, and after the Bolsheviks had won the majority in the Soviets of Petrograd and Moscow, they returned to the slogan “All Power to the Soviets” with a new content. Not , as previously, as a slogan that would expose the compromise, the conciliation of the Mensheviks with the bourgeois government and would facilitate the change of the correlation of forces, but as a slogan for the overthrow of the Provisional Democratic Government, as a slogan for the revolutionary uprising. The Bolsheviks acted in this direction without waiting for the elections to the Constituent Assembly or the Congress of Soviets.
The decisiveness of Lenin and those from the leadership of the Bolsheviks who supported his positions led in the end to the victorious socialist revolution on October 25 (November 7, according to the new calendar) 1917.
The experience of the October Revolution highlighted that Soviet workers’ power, the dictatorship of the proletariat, was what dealt with the pressing issues of the workers (land, bread, peace) and not bourgeois power or some “intermediate” form of power, which in reality cannot exist. Soviet Power paved the way for the abolition of the capitalist relations of production.
The Bolshevik party, with the decisive contribution of Lenin, in order to reach the victorious revolution made constant theoretical and political efforts to develop its strategic view, to deepen and predict the rapid changes in the correlation of forces between the rival classes, as well as to increase its political influence inside the working class itself. The changes in the revolutionary political line from 1905 to October 1917 reflect the maturing of its strategic elaboration.
It was not easy. Beginning with the separation from the Mensheviks in 1903 at the 2nd Congress of the Russian Social-democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) and the formation of a separate party in 1912, the Bolsheviks were steeled in conditions of struggle against and of ideological-political-organizational separation from the forces of opportunism.
The course to victory was the result of constant, persistent theoretical and political elaborations. A decisive contribution for the formation of the strategy of the socialist revolution was provided by the study of the characteristics of monopoly capitalism (in the work “Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism”), of the stance towards the bourgeois state and the character of workers’ power, i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat (“State and Revolution”) and the more general deepening in the dialectical materialist thinking and analysis of the developments (with the work “Materialism and Empirio-criticism”), while the economic analysis of Tsarist Russia had already preceded (with the work “The development of capitalism in Russia”).
These elaborations highlighted the potential for the socialization of the concentrated means of production in the era of monopoly capitalism and also the potential created by uneven economic-political development and the sharpening of the inter-imperialist contradictions in order for the weakest link in the imperialist chain to break and for the efforts for socialist construction in one country or in a group of countries to begin.
Lenin, developing the strategy of the Bolsheviks, opposed in practice the positions of Plekhanov, Kautsky, Martov, as well as of cadres of the Bolsheviks who considered that Russia should compulsorily pass through a stage of the so-called maturation of capitalism.
These positions were widespread and influential in pre-revolutionary Russia. They were based on the particular weight of agricultural production in the Russian economy, on the lack of its mechanization, on the backwardness in terms of electrification, on the pre-capitalist remnants in a large part of the Tsarist empire. Lenin shed light on the development of capitalist relations, the creation of monopoly groups in the big cities and the potential for socialist relations of production to lend great impetus to the development of the productive forces.
As was natural, the maturation of the strategy of the Bolsheviks was not something that happened quickly and easily. The party of the Bolsheviks acquired the ability to draw conclusions from the revolutionary initiative developed by the masses in moments of the sharpening of the class struggle and to utilize the institutions created by them (the Soviets) to the benefit of the revolutionary uprising.
In each phase of the development of the class struggle, it demonstrated a characteristic ability to serve its strategy with the corresponding political line, with alliances, slogans, maneuvers and also with the astutely conducted confrontation against the Mensheviks and the rest of the opportunist forces. It utilized in the best way the combative experience acquired by its members in the harsh class battles over the entire 1905-1917 period. It worked stably and decisively to change the correlation of forces in the labour and trade union movement and was able to change the correlation of forces in the largest trade unions in Petrograd and Moscow during the First World War and chiefly it was able to gradually increase its influence in the organs of the rebellious workers and soldiers (the Soviets).This theoretical readiness and combative practical ability gave the party of the Bolsheviks the ability to forge revolutionary bonds with the workers’-people’s forces and to avoid bowing to the practical difficulties that it faced in its activity, such as state and para-state violence.
In the difficult course from 1905 to 1917, the Bolsheviks faced in practice both the violence of the Tsarist state and the counterrevolutionary activity of petty bourgeois and backward popular strata. A characteristic example were the Black Hundreds in the 1905 revolution, when Lenin considered that dealing with them in a practical way would provide training for workers’ combat groups. The Bolsheviks made titanic efforts to deepen the class consciousness of the workers in this period. It is enough to bear in mind that in one of the largest demonstrations in Petrograd in 1905, the crowd held icons of the saints and the Tsar himself and sang hymns, before being attacked by the Tsar’s guard.
Particularly in the crucial period from February to October 1917, they faced very capable bourgeois politicians, like Kerensky, who had tremendous abilities in terms of misleading the masses. The Bolsheviks were successful because they worked patiently, daringly, with a plan of political, organizational and military preparation for the revolutionary uprising.
The victorious outcome of the October Revolution confirmed the strategy of the socialist revolution as well as a number of lessons that are connected to the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism:the leading role of the revolutionary communist party, its functioning based on the principle of democratic centralism, which has as its fundamental features collectivity and the safeguarding of unified action. The need to rally the working class against the power of capital, the need to attract sections of the peasants and other middle strata to the revolution and also to render other sections neutral. The historically outdated and reactionary character of the bourgeois class, the necessity of not participating in or supporting a government in the framework of capitalism, the non-existence of transitional forms of power between capitalism and socialism, the need to smash the bourgeois state.
The study of the strategy of the Bolsheviks in the October Revolution, as well as the development of its formation (from 1905 to 1917) leads to crucially important lessons. It provides valuable experience for the way communists approach the workers and popular strata with immature levels of class consciousness. The Bolsheviks were able to successfully combine the study of the domestic and international developments, the theoretical work as well as the study of the experience from the tough class struggle in Russia. This combination is today more necessary than ever for the communists to be able to work effectively in complex and difficult conditions, where the correlation of forces is negative.

ON THE STRATEGY OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT IN THE 20TH CENTURY

The party of the Bolsheviks and the October Revolution were the historical continuation of the activity of the revolutionary wing of the Marxists in the framework of the 1st and 2nd International. They contributed to the outbreak of the workers’ uprisings that came in the following years, in Berlin, Budapest, Turin, which were defeated. In general, the October Revolution accelerated the development of the international communist movement and led to the creation of the 3rd Communist International (1919-1943), which was established to counter the international strength of capital. The need for there to be a clear separation from the social-democratic parties that had betrayed the working class in the 1st World War, the need to intensify the struggle against them led to the formulation of the 21 conditions for the accession of a party to the 3rd International, at its 2nd congress in 1920, conditions related to safeguarding its revolutionary character.
However, later on the positive experience of the October Revolution was not taken on board and did not prevail over the duration of the history of the Communist International. On the contrary, the strategic view that, in general, posed the goal of an intermediate form of power or government between bourgeois and workers’ power, as a transitional phase to socialist power, prevailed to a significant extent during its existence that was characterized by contradictions on this issue. Often, this choice was justified on the basis of the initial strategic elaboration of the Bolsheviks and indeed was applied in capitalist economies and established bourgeois states in countries that did not have conditions similar to those in Russia in 1905.
The reasons for this course clearly require deeper, detailed study, which our party is continuing. However, we can already note certain factors and difficulties that contributed to the prevalence of problematic strategic elaborations.
A few years after the victory of October, the revolutionary wave of the labour movement receded especially after the defeat of the revolution in Germany in 1918 and Hungary in 1919, while the creation of the preconditions for a revolutionary situation was not utilized by some communist parties. Later, after 1920, powerful capitalist countries temporarily overcame the economic crisis and were stabilized. The majority of the workers organized in trade unions remained trapped in social-democratic parties, in some of which there continued to be an intense inner-party conflict, as in Italy and Germany.
At the same time, the confrontation inside the All-Union Communist Party (B) intensified between forces that argued that socialist construction was impossible without the victory of the socialist revolution in the advanced capitalist West (Trotsky and others)and forces, headed by Stalin, that argued that Soviet power should prioritize the direction of socialist construction.
The increased threat of a new imperialist military offensive against the USSR in the 1930s was another factor in addition to the recession of the revolutionary wave, which was combined with the very sharp class struggle inside the Soviet Union and the obstacles that had be very rapidly overcome. The discussion about how to deal with this sharpened the contradictions and theoretical weaknesses in the elaboration of the suitable revolutionary strategy.
The complex efforts of the USSR’s foreign policy to delay as far as possible the imperialist offensive and to utilize contradictions between the imperialist centres in this direction were related to significant alternations and changes in the line of the Communist International that played a negative role later in terms of the course of the international communist movement in the following decades. The changes were related to issues of how to confront the fascist current, the stance towards social-democracy, as well as towards bourgeois democracy itself. The approach of making a political separation of the imperialist alliances into aggressive ones, which included the fascist forces, and defensive ones, which included the bourgeois-democratic forces, emerged in this period.
More particularly, there was the mistaken assessment concerning the existence of a left and right wing in the social-democratic parties in the 1930s, which was the justification for an alliance with them, something that underestimated their complete transformation into parties of the bourgeois class by this point. This incorrect distinction was also maintained after the 2nd World War.
These changes, objectively, trapped the struggle of the labour movement under the banner of bourgeois democracy. Similarly, the separation of the imperialist centres into pro-peace and pro-war ones concealed the real cause of imperialist wars and the rise of fascism, i.e. monopoly capitalism. In other words, it did not shine a light on the urgent strategic tasks of the communist parties to combine the concentration of forces for the national liberation or anti-fascist struggle with the struggle for the overthrow of bourgeois power, utilizing the conditions of the revolutionary situation that were formed in a number of countries.
In general, the character of the era was underestimated in the strategic elaborations of the Communist International and the prevalent definition of the character of the revolution was based on the criterion of the position of a capitalist country in the international imperialist system. That is to say, the lower level of the development of a country in relation to the higher levels achieved by the leading powers in the international imperialist system, as well as the negative correlation of forces at the expense of the revolutionary labour movement were mistakenly adopted as criteria to define the character of the revolution.
This mistaken methodological approach underestimated the potential for socialist relations of production to lend great impetus to and liberate the development of the productive forces in a capitalist country. For example, the existing backwardness in terms of electrification that the USSR inherited was overcome very rapidly, as was illiteracy. Workers’ power organized social services that were unprecedented for the era.
The uneven development of the capitalist economies and unequal relations between states cannot be eradicated in the framework of capitalism. In the final analysis, the character of the revolution in each capitalist country is objectively determined by the basic contradiction it is called on to resolve, regardless of the relative changes of the position of each country in the international imperialist system. The socialist character and tasks of the revolution arise from the sharpening of the basic contradiction between capital and labour in each capitalist country in the era of monopoly capitalism.
In many of the elaborations of the Communist Parties, the approach towards the goal of workers power was based on the criterion of the correlation of forces and not the objective definition of the historical era we find ourselves in, which is determined by the which class is at the head of social development, i.e. the motion towards social liberation.
Lenin in his work “Under a false flag” summarized the era of monopoly capitalism as follows: “The third epoch, which has just set in, places the bourgeoisie in the same “position” as that in which the feudal lords found themselves during the first epoch.(Lenin was referring to the era of the revolutionary rise of the bourgeoisie with the French bourgeois revolution of 1789).This is the epoch of imperialism and imperialist upheavals, as well as of upheavals stemming from the nature of imperialism.”
The character of the era has a global dimension, regardless of the variations from country to country in terms of the extent and manner of the maturation of the material preconditions for the passage to socialism The centralization and expansion of wage labour, of the working class that undergoes capitalist exploitation is the main indicator of the maturation of capitalism.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIALISM IN THE USSR

The October Revolution brought to the fore a superior organization of society, which was radically different from all the systems that historically had preceded it and which had as their common feature the exploitation of man by man.
In the USSR no one could have another person under their employment. The abolition of the employment of alien labour consists the most significant social result of the October Revolution, the womb of all the various achievements for the life of the workers. With central planning as a social relation of production for the use of the socialized means of production, significant social achievements were implemented for several decades.
In the USSR, the right to work was safeguarded for first time in practice, by abolishing unemployment as a social phenomenon. The foundations for the abolition of the multifaceted economic, political-ideological and social discrimination against women were established, even in regions with immense backwardness in this field. Sciences and free Education and free high quality healthcare at all levels were rapidly developed, while the people’s universal access and ability to contribute to Culture and Sports was ensured.
Also, for the first time in History, institutions which ensured the effective participation of the workers in the management of aspects their society were created, thus removing the masses from the margins of political and social life. For the first time, the right of the workers and the youth to elect and to be elected became substantial, in contrast with the purely formal content that these rights have in capitalism. These achievements constituted a reference point and contributed, along with other factors, to the winning of gains by the labour-people’s movement in the capitalist states. It has been proved in practice that the more communist relations of production deepen, the more social relations themselves are also revolutionized, the relations of the individual with society. It has been proved that the socialist relations of production can secure collective social rights.
The significance of the above achievements is multiplied if we take into account the conditions under which they were achieved. The distance separating the pre-revolutionary Russia from the powerful capitalist states, such as the USA, Britain, Germany, France, was very large, as these states were significantly superior in the development of the productive forces and in the level of labour productivity.
The powerful capitalist states based their development on the exploitation of their own people, as well as of other peoples (employer intimidation, colonial system, violence against indigenous people, exploitation of child labour)In contrast to this, the young soviet power tried to create the economic foundations of socialism with its own forces, in conditions of the sharpening of the class struggle, that is to say in conditions of bourgeois reaction inside the country interconnected with the active attempt to overthrow workers power from abroad. The achievements of the USSR took place in conditions of the active undermining of production, the permanent threat of foreign armed intervention, assassinations of Bolsheviks and other leading workers and farmers.
Characteristic periods are:The invasion of the 14 states- with the participation of Greece during the E. Venizelos premiership- in Ukraine in 1919 for the suppression of the revolution. The counter-revolutionary atrocities, through which the bourgeois class responded inside Soviet Russia to the so-called “offensive of socialism against capitalism’s forces” during the first five-year plan of 1929-1934 (which included the industrialization and collectivization of agricultural production) and later in the period before and during the Second Imperialist World War, when the stance of the capitalist states- alongside the particular aspirations of each one- also served the common goal of the overthrowing the USSR .
The consequences of the First and Second World Wars placed additional obstacles for socialist construction, taking into account that no other country faced such large-scale destruction, while the USSR’s main adversary in the global competition between socialism-capitalism, the USA, did not experience war on its territory.
As we approach the above achievements, we must bear in mind that soviet society was not a mature, fully-formed and “flourishing” communist society. But a communist society at an early stage of development, a society under communist formation.
The birth and development of the communist society can carry, to a significant extent, the remnants from its capitalist past, but also the consequences of capitalism’s domination at a global level. These consequences- which were met in all sectors of the USSR’s social life- were remnants of the old society within the new one, remnants which had not been radically confronted yet and not all social relations had been fully transformed into communist ones.
The bourgeois and petty-bourgeois criticism of the History of the USSR consciously conceals that it is the history of the premature level of communist society. This criticism points out weaknesses and mistakes from the point of view of an ideal communist society in order to defame and discourage revolutionary workers activity. At the same time, the multi-faceted bourgeois propaganda invents crimes, as it labels the right of workers power to defend itself from external attempts to undermine it, while at the same time, it falsifies history by equating communism with fascism.
However, bourgeois propaganda cannot hide the superiority of the central scientific planning for the development of the productive forces, on the solid ground guaranteed by workers power and the social ownership of the means of production,factories domestic energy resources, mineral wealth, land, infrastructure. The History of the USSR proves what the workers can achieve when they become masters of the means of production and of the social wealth, when they acquire political power. The latter form of democracy puts the real producers of the wealth into the driving seat, and not the hypocritical bourgeois parliamentary democracy which is a weapon of capitalist dominance for the subjugation of the working class.
The results of the central scientific planning of workers’ power, such as the elimination of unemployment, the rapid and effective specialization of the workforce, its proper distribution throughout the economy, the achievements in the exploration of space, the conversion of peace-time industry into war industry on the eve of the Second World War, are unprecedented, if we also take into account the pre-capitalist backwardness in many regions and the deep asymmetry of capitalist development that was dominant in Tsarist Russia. The distance covered by workers’ power in the development of the productive forces, both domestically and internationally, was really enormous.

HOW AND WHY WE REACHED THE COUNTERREVOLUTION AND THE OVERTHROW OF SOCIALIST CONSTRUCTION

The course of the socialist construction in the USSR did not move in a linear fashion , upwards and smoothly.
In order to critically evaluate the positive and negative experience of the History’s first attempt at socialist construction, it is necessary to briefly distinguish its major historical periods.
After the disastrous for the country’s productive base foreign intervention and the class-based civil war (1917-1922) and the New Economic Policy (1922-1929)- which followed as a temporary retreat in the given circumstances- the drawing up of the first five-year plan in 1929 meant the beginning of the offensive of socialism’s forces. From this period and until the Second World War, in the USSR the struggle for the development of the communist relations of production, the abolition of wage labour and the dominance of the socialized sector of production on the basis of Central Planning was generally successful. This struggle was successful despite the fact that the conditions of imperialist encirclement and the threat of war- combined with the inheritance of great backwardness- required the acceleration of the process for the construction of new (productive) relations.
During that period, new institutions of workers participation were developed, the core of which was the workplace; this political relation was subsequently violated, retreating in the face of existing objective difficulties and also subjective pressures. Under the pressure of the preparation for the active contribution of all the people in the impending war, the 1936 Soviet Constitution generalized the electoral right through a universal secret ballot, based on the place of residence. The assemblies of each productive unit as the core of the organization of workers’ power were downgraded. In practice, the difficulty of recalling delegates from the higher state institutions increased
After the Second World War, both the reconstruction as well as, subsequently, the further development of communist relations set new challenges and demands that required a relevant adaptation of the revolutionary strategy. In the first years after the war, the dominant direction within the CPSU was the anti-market one which- despite the theoretical weaknesses and shortcomings- remained firm in the goal of developing the communist relations, of the planned eradication of inequalities, of the commodity in agricultural production (combined with the goal of transforming the Kolkhozs-cooperatives into social ownership).
Despite the success of the first post-war economic plan, agricultural production experienced delays. Also, some problems were encountered in central planning, including in relation to the ratios between productive sectors.
Life showed that there was no collectively achieved theoretical dynamic which could adapt the communist strategy to the challenges posed by the new level of development in social production. The problems which emerged were not interpreted correctly and were not dealt with in a direction of strengthening and expanding communist relations.
They were interpreted as inevitable weaknesses existing in the nature of central planning and not as a result of the contradictions due to the survival of the old, as a result of the mistakes of the non-scientifically elaborated plan. Thus, instead of seeking a solution towards the invigoration and expansion of the communist relations of production and distribution, it was sought by looking to the past, i.e. in the exploitation of tools and production relations of capitalism. The solution was sought in the expansion of the market, in “market socialism”.
The 20th CPSU Congress (1956) stands out as a turning point because in that congress, with the vehicle being (“under the pretext of”) the so-called “personality cult”, a series of opportunist positions were adopted on the issues of the communist movement strategy, of international relations and partly of the economy. In general, the central administration of the plan weakened. Instead of planning the conversion of kolkhozs into sovkhozs and, above all, of beginning the passage of all cooperative-kolkhoz production to state control, in 1958 the tractors and other machinery became the property of the kolkhozs, a position which had previously been rejected.
A few years later, beginning with the so-called “Kosygin reforms” (1965), the bourgeois category of “business profit” of each individual production unit was adopted and the wages of managers and workers were linked to it. The assessment of the productivity of the socialist productive units on the basis of production volume was replaced by the value estimation of their products. The process of accumulation of each socialist unit was disconnected from central planning, resulting in the weakening of the social character of the means of production and product stocks. At the same time, by1975, all state farms, the Sovkhozs, had been under full self-management. All these measures led to the creation of the conditions for private embezzlement and ownership, relations which were legally prohibited.
The differences in labour income between workers and managers in each enterprise, as well as among workers in different enterprises, increased. The individual interest was strengthened at the expense of the social interest and the communist consciousness, the stance of defending and promoting of social ownership, was damaged.
The so-called “shadow capital” emerged as a result of enrichment from business profit but also from the “black” market, from criminal actions to usurp the social product, that sought its legal function as capital in production; in reality, the privatization of the means of production and hiring of alien labour, the restoration of capitalism. Its (shadow capital) owners constituted the driving force of the counter-revolution.
In about the same period, the Marxist-Leninist perception about the workers’ state was also revised. The 22nd Congress of the CPSU (1961) described the USSR state as an “all-people’s” state and the CPSU as an “all-people’s party”. These positions caused a rapid blunting- and consequently mutation- of the revolutionary characteristics and social composition of the party. The transformation of the CPSU’s opportunist degeneration into an open counter-revolutionary force was manifested in 1987, with the passing of a law which institutionally established capitalist relations, under the pretext of the diversity of property relations, the notorious policy of “Perestroika” and “Glasnost”. This fact also marks the formal beginning of the counter-revolutionary period.
As the leadership of the CPSU was adopting choices which weakened the social character of property and strengthened narrow individual and group interests, feelings of alienation from social ownership were created and the class consciousness of the workers eroded. The path to indifference and individualism was opening up, as long as practice was increasingly becoming distant from the proclamations. This course explains the passivity of a large part of the people during the period of the counter-revolutionary upheavals and, at the same time, it shows the degeneration that the ruling circles of the CPSU had reached.

THE CHARTING OF A MODERN REVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY BY THE KKE

Following the overthrow of socialism in the USSR and the other socialist countries, as well as the outbreak of the internal party crisis of the KKE in July 1991 which led to the removal of the opportunist group that was operating in its ranks, the KKE began its revolutionary regroupment.
In difficult circumstances, due to the consequences of the counterrevolution in the international communist movement, the KKE tried all these years to study the contemporary developments, to draw conclusions from the historical experience of the class struggle in Greece and internationally and, at the same time, to deepen and expand its militant ties with the working class and the popular strata. The main conclusions of this course, after a first attempt to study it in the 1990s, were included in the Assessments on Socialism in the USSR (18th Congress, 2009) and in the Programme which was adopted at the 19th Congress in 2013. Of course, the relevant study continues. In general, the KKE constantly tries not to detach the daily economic and political struggle from the main revolutionary political task of overthrowing the power of capital.
The factors which will lead to the revolutionary situation cannot be predicted. However, the deepening of the economic crisis, the sharpening of the contradictions between the imperialist centres that even end up in armed conflicts, can create such conditions in Greece. In case of an imperialist military entanglement of Greece, either in a defensive or aggressive war, the working class, the people’s movement must not find themselves under a false flag. The Party will lead the independent organization of the workers-peoples’ struggle, in order to lead to the total defeat of the bourgeoisie that imposes the war or “peace” with the gun to the people’s head.
The fact that the KKE has charted a modern revolutionary strategy increases its ability to organize leading sites of resistance and counterattack in every sector of the economy, every large workplace, in every region of the country.
The strengthening of the KKE at all levels, which was an important issue at the recent 20th Congress of the Party, constitutes a prerequisite for the promotion of its revolutionary policy.
Many workers wonder, in a well-intentioned way, if socialist construction can start in a country with the potential of contemporary Greece. The KKE replies:
-The needs of the people can be met, based on the productive potential and the wealth that is produced today in our country.
-Domestic production can reach great heights if it is freed from the chains of capitalist ownership and exploitation of the working class.
-Only workers’ power can utilize, for the benefit of the people, the contradictions between the imperialist alliances which today are sharpening.
-We must not think statically about the correlation of forces in the wider region, since it will significantly change in revolutionary conditions, not only in our country, but more widely in the region as well.
At the same time, the KKE struggles for the regroupment of the international communist movement, according to the principles of proletarian internationalism, the internationalist solidarity of the people against capitalism and imperialist war, which is expressed in the slogan “Workers of all countries unite!”.Already, some small steps towards the effort of the creation of a distinct pole based on the principles of Marxism-Leninism have been made, through the “International Communist Review” and the European Communist Initiative.
An integral part of the KKE’s contemporary strategy is its programmatic perception of socialism. Socialist construction begins with the revolutionary conquest of power by the working class. The workers’ state, the dictatorship of the proletariat, is an instrument of the working class in the class struggle which continues in socialism with other forms and means. It is utilized for the planned development of the new social relations, which presupposes the suppression of the counter-revolutionary efforts, but also the development of the communist consciousness of the working class. The workers’ state, as a mechanism of political domination, is necessary until the transformation of all social relations into communist ones, until the formation of communist consciousness in the overwhelming majority of the workers, but also until the victory of the revolution in the most powerful capitalist countries.
The qualitatively new element of workers’ power is the transformation of the workplace (production unit, administrative unit, social service, agricultural cooperative) into the core of its organization.
Direct and indirect democracy is based on the workers’ assembly of each production unit as well as the ability to control and revoke the elected delegates, that is to say substantial electoral rights in contrast to today’s formal electoral rights of bourgeois democracy, of the dictatorship of the capital.
The primary task of this power is the formation of the new mode of production, the predominance of which basically presupposes the total abolition of the capitalist relations, of the relation between capital and wage labour. As the Programme of the KKE states:
The concentrated means of production are socialized, but initially there remain forms of individual and group ownership that constitute the basis for the existence of commodity-money relation. Forms of productive cooperatives are formed, where the level of the relations of production still does not allow for the socialization of the means of production. The forms of group ownership constitute a transitional form of ownership, between the private and the social one, and not an immature form of communist relations.
On the basis of social ownership of the centralized means of production, the central planning of the economy develops as a communist relation that connects all the producers. Central planning also incorporates, up to a point, agricultural cooperative production. Along with the expansion and deepening of the communist relations of production, the working class gradually acquires the ability to fully understand the different parts of the production process.
Simultaneously with the distribution of a part of the product on the basis of need(Education, Health, heating etc.), socialist production distributes the remaining part of its products on the basis of the individual labour contribution of each person in social labour as a whole, without separating labour into complex and simple, manual (practical) or intellectual.
The Communist Party is the guiding nucleus of revolutionary workers’ power, since it is the only force which consciously acts on the basis of the laws of motion of the socialist-communist society.

THE OCTOBER REVOLUTION SHOWS THE WAY

Today, the theories that characterized counterrevolution as a process for socialism’s renewal, which would pave the way for friendship and peace among the peoples, have completely fallen part. Likewise, all the theories and policies for the capitalist system’s “humanization” have also collapsed. At the same time, the contradictions between capitalist states, between monopoly groups of international scope, are creating more and more war flashpoints, with the existing risk of their generalization. The social cancer of capitalist ownership of the means of production “shows its bloody teeth”.
All those who celebrated the counter-revolutionary overthrows of 1989-1991 have been completely exposed, they have contributed to the corrosion of the labour movement, to the prevailing attitude of fatalism and compromise. On the contrary, the KKE is proud that, at the crucial moment, the day when the red flag was lowered from the Kremlin,it had the strength to address, through “Rizospastis”, the following call to the communists:”Comrades, raise the flag high”.
Today, the KKE conducts a tough struggle to achieve those characteristics that will enable it to act as the “all-weather” revolutionary vanguard. In today’s conditions, the struggle for the definitive abolition of the class – exploitative society and the construction of the socialist-communist one is the real way to honour the October Revolution and its goals.
Despite the domination of the counter-revolution, the words of Mayakovsky continue to show the way:
“Long live the Revolution, joyful and fast
This is the only great war of all that history has known.”
The CC of the KKE,
23/05/2017