Category: V.I. Lenin
‘Russophobic gesture’: Communists denounce plans to remove Seattle Lenin statue

‘Russophobic gesture’: Communists denounce plans to remove Seattle Lenin statue

‘Russophobic gesture’: Communists denounce plans to remove Seattle Lenin statue
The Russian Communist Party has criticized the authorities in the US city of Seattle over plans to remove a statue of Lenin from the city. The party said it is against vandalism and supports the diversity of monuments to different political ideals all over the world.

The war of monuments is under way, but there are a lot of Lenin monuments all over the Earth. We denounce vandalism because different monuments must exist,” the secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Sergey Obukhov, was quoted as saying on Friday by RIA Novosti.

I understand that the mayor of Seattle is doing this to please the kind of leftists whose activities, I would say, included the organization of clashes in Seattle,” he added.

Russian Communist Party MP Dmitry Novikov stated that the plans to remove the statue were just another manifestation of the anti-Soviet, anti-Communist and anti-Russian mood.

If the mayor of Seattle tries to connect the campaign against Confederate monuments and the campaign against Lenin’s statue it looks rather strange, because Lenin was in strong opposition to all forms of slavery and all forms of social violence. He was for justice and personal freedom, he had created a party that was steadily fighting against the absolute monarchy in our country,” Novikov said.

This cannot be called anything else but an attempt to remain in some political trend,” the Russian lawmaker added.

The 5-meter-high bronze statue of Bolshevik leader Lenin installed in Seattle is privately owned, after being bought from the Slovakian authorities in the early 1990s. The owner says that he put the statue on display because he is looking to sell it.

On Thursday, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray called for the statue to be removed because it allegedly represented historic injustice as well as hate and violence.

In the same statement, the mayor said he wanted to remove a memorial to Confederate soldiers for the same reasons.

Shortly before that, a group of activists supporting President Donald Trump protested against the Lenin statue in Seattle with posters reading “Lenin is Hitler” and “Tear it down.” The protest was apparently a reply to the events in Charlottesville, Virginia, where authorities had ordered the removal of the monument to Confederate commander Robert E. Lee, sparking a major standoff between leftist and rightist groups that ended in violence and one death.

KKE speech in Leningrad Conference: Our future isn’t capitalism, it is the new world, socialism

Thursday, August 17, 2017

KKE speech in Leningrad Conference: Our future isn’t capitalism, it is the new world, socialism
Speech of the Communist Party of Greece at the the International Theoretical Conference of Communist and Workers parties: “100 years after the Great October Socialist Revolution, the lessons and tasks for the contemporary communists.” (Leningrad, Russia 11-13/8/2017). 
Dear comrades,
On behalf of the CC of the KKE, we thank the RWCP for this initiative and for hosting our Conference Today.
The Central Committee of the KKE honours the 100th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution. It honours the climactic world-historic event of the 20th century which demonstrated that capitalism is not invincible, that we can construct a superior organization of society, without the exploitation of man by man.
The October Revolution shed light on the strength of the revolutionary class struggle, the strength of the exploited and oppressed, when they take centre stage and turn the wheel of history forwards in the direction of social liberation. The Russian working class through the October revolution came to incarnate the the vision of the working class-popular masses, of millions of people, for a better life.
The October Revolution demonstrated the correctness of the Leninist analysis that the victory of socialism is possible in one country or a group of countries, as a consequence of the uneven development of capitalism.
At the same time, October highlighted the irreplaceable role of the revolutionary political vanguard, the communist party, as the leading factor not only in the socialist revolution, but also during the entire struggle for the formation, strengthening, and final victory of the new communist society.
The contribution of Lenin and the experience of the Bolsheviks in the struggle against opportunism (as a vehicle of bourgeois ideology and politics in the labour movement) is of great, decisive political and practical importance.
In practice, it has been demonstrated that the well-grounded confrontation against the economists, the Mensheviks and the SRs constituted a basic feature in the formation of the conditions for the formation of the revolutionary party, the party of a new type, built on Leninist principles.
The systematic efforts to cleanse the Bolshevik Party from opportunism strengthened the revolutionary forces and (in two years after the 2nd Congress, 1903) allowed for the preparation of the party and the acquisition of a decisive role in the 1905 revolution and in the years of reaction that followed, continuing and adjusting the revolutionary line in new conditions.
“An insurrectionary outbreak has once more been suppressed. Once more we say: Hail the insurrection!” as Lenin wrote in September 1905 about the Moscow uprising and later in 1906 that “, nothing could be more short-sighted than Plekhanov’s view, seized upon by all the opportunists, that the strike was untimely and should not have been started, and that “they should not have taken to arms (…)On the contrary, we should have taken to arms more resolutely, energetically and aggressively; we should have explained to the masses that it was impossible to confine things to a peaceful strike and that a fearless and relentless armed fight was necessary.”
From 1905 until the victorious revolution of October 1917, a qualitative difference emerged in the form of the chasm between the strategy of the revolutionary current and the opportunism of the Mensheviks and SRs, who fostered fatalism and spread Parliamentary illusions, supported the bourgeois provisional government that was formed in February 1917, trapped the Soviets for a crucial period and tried to neuter them.
The Mensheviks and the SRs attempted to impede the October Revolution and to lead it to defeat. They fought against the new workers’ power and in a planned way undermined socialist construction, and it was these forces of opportunism that later corroded the CPSU and contributed decisively in the counterrevolution and the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union.
Today, when the consequences of the counterrevolution attack the working class all over the world and when it has been demonstrated in practice that capitalism gives rise to imperialist wars, economic crises, unemployment, poverty and refugees, the opportunist forces brazenly talk of “October”, attempting to undermine, cancel out the socialist character of the October Revolution and its enormous historical contribution.
The truth is that the forces of opportunism carried out an organized anti-soviet anti-communist campaign over the entire course of socialist construction, under the label of eurocommunism or its variants in many countries.
The communists must remember and learn.
Opportunism may change its name and forms of organization and expression, but at each historical moment it constitutes a great danger remains for the communist movement, a factor for its corrosion and co-option into the capitalist exploitative system.
The flame of October led to and accelerated the establishment of a number of Communist Parties, revolutionary workers’ parties of a new type, in opposition to the social-democratic parties of that era, which had betrayed the working class and the revolutionary political line.
The decades-long existence and successes of the socialist society, which was inaugurated by the October Revolution, demonstrated that a society without bosses, without capitalists that own the means of production is possible. This conclusion is not negated by the fact that in this specific phases it was not able to defeat once and for all capitalist ownership and capitalist profit.
The necessity and timeliness of socialism, the potential to abolish private ownership over the concentrated means of production flow from the development of capitalism which leads to the concentration of production. Capitalist ownership puts a brake on the social character of production. Capitalist ownership cancels out the potential for all workers to live in better socially organized conditions that correspond to their increased human needs:they should all have work without the nightmare of unemployment, working fewer hours, enjoying a better standard of living, with a high level of exclusively public and free education and similar services in health and welfare.
The working class creates these possibilities through its work inside capitalism, which are expanded by the development of science and technology. However, in a society where everything produced is determined on the basis of private, capitalist profit, the needs of the working class and the popular strata are crushed. The essence of the problem is that those who produce are not those who decide on the goals and organization of production. The cyclical economic crises are in the DNA of capitalism and are becoming increasingly deep and synchronized, resulting in the sharp increase of unemployment, the further expansion of badly paid work without social security cover, life with smashed rights, with imperialist wars for the division of markets and territories.
The deterioration of working and living conditions, despite the rise of labour productivity, concerns the entire capitalist world and indeed the most developed capitalist states. The capitalist states themselves, their research centres, admit that the workers’ income is shrinking, while the wealth of the capitalists is increasing.
The fact that the preconditions have been formed for the construction of the socialist-communist society does not automatically entail its realization. An important reason for this is the fact that, in contrast with the laws of nature, social progress requires the relevant activity of humans, in this case the class struggle for the abolition of the old society and the construction of one.
The outbreak of the socialist revolution (just as every social revolution in human history) presupposes the emergence of a situation where the ability of the ruling class to co-opt, repress and subdue the people is weakened.
Lenin formulated the definition of the revolutionary situation and identified the main objective and subjective characteristics, which are are accumulated in society on the eve of the revolution. However, as Lenin aptly stressed, this does not means that every revolutionary situation is converted into a revolution. Neither the reaction of those below, nor the crisis of those above will trigger the overthrow, if there is not a planned revolutionary uprising of the working class, led by its conscious vanguard.
In other words, for a workers’ revolution to break out there must be the presence of the revolutionary political vanguard, the communist party, equipped with the theoretical elaborations and ability to predict the developments, based on the Marxist-Leninist world-view and capable of leading the revolutionary uprising of the working class.
Unfortunately, later on the positive experience of the October Revolution was not taken on board and did not prevail over the duration of the Communist International. In contrast, over a contradictory trajectory, the strategic view that, in general, posed the goal of an intermediate form of power or government between bourgeois and workers’ power, as a transitional phase to socialist power, prevailed to a significant extent.
Today, we can better examine the complex efforts of the USSR’s foreign policy to delay as far as possible the imperialist offensive and to utilize contradictions between the imperialist centres in this direction were related to significant alternations and changes in the line of the Communist International that played a negative role later in terms of the course of the international communist movement in the following decades. The changes were related to issues of how to confront the fascist current, the stance towards social-democracy, as well as towards bourgeois democracy itself. The policy of separating the imperialist alliances into aggressive ones, which included the fascist forces, and defensive ones, which included the bourgeois-democratic forces, emerged in this period.
More particularly, the assessment concerning the existence of a left and right wing in the social-democratic parties in the 1930s, which was the justification for an alliance with them, something that underestimated their complete transformation into parties of the bourgeois class by this point. This mistaken distinction was also maintained after the 2nd World War.
These changes, objectively, trapped the struggle of the labour movement under the banner of bourgeois democracy. Similarly, the separation of the imperialist centres into pro-peace and pro-war ones concealed the real cause of imperialist wars and the rise of fascism, i.e. monopoly capitalism. In other words, it did not shine a light on the urgent strategic tasks of the communist parties to combine the concentration of forces for the national liberation or anti-fascist struggle with the struggle for the overthrow of bourgeois power, utilizing the conditions of the revolutionary situation that were formed in a number of countries.
In general, the character of the era was underestimated in the strategic elaborations of the Communist International and the prevalent definition of the character of the revolution was based on the criterion of the position of a capitalist country in the international imperialist system. That is to say, the lower level of the development of a country in relation to the higher levels achieved by the leading powers in the international imperialist system, as well as the negative correlation of forces at the expense of the revolutionary labour movement were mistakenly adopted as criteria to define the character of the revolution.
However, the uneven development of the capitalist economies and unequal relations between states cannot be eradicated in the framework of capitalism. In the final analysis, the character of the revolution in each capitalist country is objectively determined by the basic contradiction it is called on to resolve, regardless of the relative changes of the position of each country in the international imperialist system. The socialist character and tasks of the revolution arise from the sharpening of the basic contradiction between capital and labour in each capitalist country in the era of monopoly capitalism.
In a lot of the elaborations of the Communist Parties, the approach towards the goal of workers power was based on the criterion of the correlation of forces and not the objective definition of the historical era we find ourselves in, which is determined by which class is at the head of social development, i.e. the motion towards social liberation.
However, these mistakes in the strategy of the international communist movement, as well as the mistakes made by the CPSU in terms of charting its domestic policy, together with the expected undermining work of imperialism and the counterrevolution, influenced the developments.
The October Revolution brought to the fore a superior organization of society, which was radically different from all the systems that historically had preceded it and which had as their common feature the exploitation of man by man.
During that period, new institutions of workers participation were developed, the core of which was the workplace; this political relation was subsequently violated, retreating in the face of existing objective difficulties and also subjective pressures. Under the pressure of the preparation for the active contribution of all the people in the upcoming war, the 1936 Soviet Constitution generalized the electoral right through a universal secret ballot, based on the place of residence. The assemblies of each productive unit as the core of the organization of workers’ power were downgraded. In practice, the difficulty of recalling representatives from the higher state institutions increased
They were interpreted as inevitable weaknesses existing in the nature of central planning and not as a result of the contradictions of the survival of the old, as a result of the mistakes of the non-scientifically elaborated plan. Thus, instead of seeking a solution towards the invigoration and expansion of the communist relations of production and distribution, it was sought backwards, i.e. in the exploitation of tools and production relations of capitalism. The solution was sought in the expansion of the market, in “market socialism”.
The 20th CPSU Congress (1956) stands out as a turning point because in that, under the pretext of the so-called “personality cult”, a series of opportunist positions were adopted on the issues of the communist movement strategy, of international relations and partly of the economy. In general, the central administration of the plan weakened. Instead of designing the conversion of kolkhozes into sovkhozes and, above all, of beginning the passage of all cooperative-kolkhoznik production to state control, in 1958 the tractors and other machinery became the property of the kolkhozes, a position which had previously been rejected.
A few years later, beginning with the so-called “Kosygin reforms” (1965), the bourgeois category of “business profit” of each individual production unit was adopted and the wages of managers and workers were linked to it. The assessment of the productivity of the socialist productive units on the basis of production volume was replaced by the value estimation of their products. The process of accumulation of each socialist unit was disconnected from central planning, resulting in the weakening of the social character of the means of production and product stocks. At the same time, by 1975, all state farms, the sovkhozes, were under full self-management. All these measures led to the creation of the conditions for private embezzlement and ownership, relations which were legally prohibited.
In about the same period, the Marxist-Leninist perception about the workers’ state was also revised. The 22nd Congress of the CPSU (1961) described the USSR state as an “all-people’s” state and the CPSU as an “all-people’s party”.These positions caused a rapid blunting- and consequently mutation- of the revolutionary characteristics and social composition of the party. The transformation of the CPSU’s opportunist degeneration into an open counter-revolutionary force was manifested in 1987, with the passage of a law which institutionally established capitalist relations, under the pretext of the diversity of property relations, the notorious policy of “Perestroika” and “Glasnost”. This fact also marks the formal beginning of the counter-revolutionary period.
Dear comrades,
The KKE seeks to draw the necessary conclusions for today, both from the victories and also from the bitter defeats and the retreat of the communist movement. Through a long and painstaking collective process, the KKE has charted a modern revolutionary strategy nad has increased its ability to organize leading sites of resistance and counter-attack in every sector of the economy, every large workplace, in every region of the country.
The strengthening of the KKE at all levels, which was an important issue at the recent 20th Congress of the Party, constitutes a prerequisite for the promotion of its revolutionary policy.
At the same time, the KKE struggles for the regroupment of the international communist movement, according to the principles of proletarian internationalism, the internationalist solidarity of the people against capitalism and imperialist war, which is expressed in the slogan “Workers of all countries unite!”Already, we can see some small steps towards the effort of the creation of a distinct pole based on the principles of Marxism-Leninism , through the “International Communist Review” and the European Communist Initiative.
An integral part of the KKE’s contemporary strategy is its programmatic perception of socialism. Socialist construction begins with the revolutionary conquest of power by the working class. The workers’ state, the dictatorship of the proletariat, is an instrument of the working class in the class struggle which continues in socialism with other forms and means. It is utilized for the planned development of the new social relations, which presupposes the suppression of the counter-revolutionary efforts, but also the development of the communist consciousness of the working class. The workers’ state, as a mechanism of political domination, is necessary until the transformation of all social relations into communist ones, until the formation of communist consciousness in the overwhelming majority of the workers, but also until the victory of the revolution in the most powerful capitalist countries.
Dear comrades,
100 years ago, in this city, the 6th Congress of the Bolshevik Party took a “milestone” decision, setting out their line for the armed insurrection. The implementation of the decision led a few months later to the roar of the “Aurora’s” cannons. Today, 100 years afterwards, the communists from all over the world are called on to study this history, to draw the necessary conclusions, to chart a modern revolutionary strategy in their countries and at an international level.
This is the necessary response in order to deal with the corrosive work of opportunism, to overcome the ideological-political and organizational retreat of the communist movement, its revolutionary regroupment.
The adjustment of the strategy of the communist parties to correspond to the character of our era, the era of the passage from the monopoly capitalism-imperialism to socialism, which was inaugurated by the October Socialist Revolution and consequently overcoming the strategy of intermediate stages, which exists in the programmes of the communist parties, and defining the character of the revolution as socialist, is objectively necessary and imposed by reality.
This direction can contribute decisively to the liberation from political options that operate in the framework of capitalism, such as the so-called “left governments” and the alliance with social-democracy, to lend impetus to the anti-monopoly anti-capitalist struggle, to elaborations based on the requirements of the class struggle and that can contribute to the preparation of the subjective factor, to the concentration of working class-popular forces in the struggle for the overthrow of capitalism and the construction of socialism-communism.
* * * 
Discurso del KKE en la Conferencia Teórica Internacional de Partidos Comunistas y Obreros “100 años de la Gran Revolución Socialista de Octubre, las enseñanzas y las tareas para los comunistas hoy” (Leningrado, Rusia 11-13/8/2017)
Estimados camaradas:
En nombre del Comité Central del KKE agradecemos el PCOR por esta iniciativa y la celebración de la Conferencia de hoy.
El Comité Central del KKE rinde honor al centenario de la Gran Revolución Socialista de Octubre. Rinde honor al acontecimiento transcendental del siglo XX que demostró que el capitalismo no es invencible, que  podemos construir una sociedad con organización superior, sin explotación del hombre por el hombre.
La Revolución de Octubre ha demostrado la fuerza de la lucha de clases revolucionaria, la fuerza de los explotados y de los oprimidos, cuando pasan enérgicamente a primer plano y giran la rueda de la Historia hacia delante, hacia la dirección de la liberación social. La clase obrera rusa a través de la Revolución de Octubre materializó el ideal de millones de personas, de las masas obreras y populares por una vida mejor.
La Revolución de Octubre demostró la validez del pensamiento leninista de que la victoria del socialismo es posible en un país o en un grupo de países, como consecuencia del desarrollo desigual del capitalismo.
Al mismo tiempo, la Revolución de Octubre destacó el papel irreemplazable de la vanguardia política revolucionaria, del Partido Comunista, como dirigente no sólo de la revolución socialista, sino además de toda la lucha por la formación, el fortalecimiento, la victoria final de la nueva sociedad comunista.
La contribución de Lenin y la experiencia de los bolcheviques en la lucha contra el oportunismo (como vehículo de la ideología y de la política burguesa) tiene gran y decisiva importancia política y practica.
En la práctica se demostró que la confrontación bien documentada contra los economistas, los mencheviques y los eseristas fue el elemento principal para la formación de las condiciones para la formación del partido revolucionario, del partido de nuevo tipo, fomentado sobre los principios leninistas.
El esfuerzo sistemático para limpiar el partido bolchevique del oportunismo, fortaleció a las fuerzas revolucionarias y (dentro de dos años a partir del II Congreso en 1903) permitió al partido prepararse y desempeñar un papel decisivo en la revolución de 1905 y en los años de la reacción que siguieron, ajustando la línea revolucionaria en las nuevas condiciones.
“El estallido de la insurrección fue reprimido una vez más. Exclamaremos entonces, ¡Viva la insurrección!”, escribió Lenin en septiembre de 1905 respecto a la insurrección de Moscú y a continuación, en 1906, destacó que “así, pues, nada podía ser menos perspicaz que la opinión de Plejánov, que hacen suya todos los oportunistas, de que la huelga era inoportuna y no debía haberse iniciado, que ʻno se debió empuñar las armasʼ. Por el contrario, se debió empuñarlas más decididamente, con mayor energía y combatividad; se debió explicar a las masas que era imposible limitarse a una huelga pacífica y que una lucha armada intrépida e implacable era necesaria”.
Desde 1905 hasta la victoriosa revolución socialista de octubre de 1917 se hizo clara la diferencia en la calidad, el abismo entre la estrategia de la corriente revolucionaria y el oportunismo de los mencheviques y de los eseristas que fomentaron el fatalismo y difundieron ilusiones parlamentarias, apoyaron el gobierno burgués provisional que se formó en 1917, atraparon los Soviets durante un período crucial e intentaron neutralizarlos.
Los mencheviques y los eseristas trataron de impedir la revolución de Octubre y llevarla a la derrota, lucharon contra el nuevo poder obrero y socavaron de manera planificada la construcción socialista y estas fuerzas oportunistas en los años siguientes corroyeron el PCUS y jugaron un papel primordial en la contrarrevolución y en la restauración del capitalismo en la Unión Soviética.
Hoy día, cuando las consecuencias de la contrarrevolución atacan a la clase obrera en todo el mundo de manera dura y se ha demostrado en la práctica de que el capitalismo da lugar a guerras imperialistas, a crisis económicas, al desempleo, a la pobreza y a los refugiados, fuerzas oportunistas hablan descaradamente para la revolución de Octubre y, en todo caso, tratan de socavar, de eliminar el carácter socialista de la revolución de Octubre y su enorme contribución histórica.
De hecho, las fuerzas oportunistas llevaron a cabo una campaña antisoviética anticomunista organizada durante todo el curso de la construcción socialista, bajo el manto del eurocomunismo o de sus variantes en muchos países.
Las y los comunistas deben recordarlo y aprender de ello.
El oportunismo cambia de nombre y de formas de organización y de expresión, pero en cada momento sigue siendo un gran peligro para el movimiento comunista, un factor de corrosión y de asimilación en el sistema de explotación capitalista.
La llama de la Revolución de Octubre condujo y aceleró la creación de varios Partidos Comunistas, de partidos obreros revolucionarios de nuevo tipo, en contraste con los partidos socialdemócratas de aquella época que habían traicionado a la clase obrera y la política revolucionaria.
Durante décadas, la existencia y los logros de la sociedad socialista, que fue inaugurada por la Revolución de Octubre, demostraron que es posible una sociedad sin patrones, sin capitalistas que poseen los medios de producción. Esta conclusión no se puede refutar por el hecho de que en aquel período particular no logró derrotar definitivamente la propiedad capitalista y la ganancia capitalista.
La necesidad y la vigencia del socialismo, la posibilidad de abolir la propiedad privada en los medios concentrados de producción derivan del desarrollo capitalista que conduce a la concentración de la producción. La propiedad capitalista es un freno para el carácter social de la producción. La propiedad capitalista cancela la posibilidad de que todos los trabajadores vivan en mejores condiciones organizadas a nivel social que satisfagan las necesidades crecientes humanas: Que todos tengan trabajo sin la pesadilla del desempleo, que trabajen menos horas disfrutando una calidad de vida mejor y servicios de educación, de sanidad y de bienestar de alto nivel, exclusivamente públicos y gratuitos.
En el capitalismo, la clase obrera crea estas oportunidades con su trabajo que se amplían con el desarrollo de las ciencias y de la tecnología. Sin embargo, en una sociedad donde todo lo que se produce y el modo de producción se determinan sobre la base de la ganancia privada, capitalista, las necesidades de la clase obrera y de las capas populares están suprimidas. La esencia del problema radica en el hecho de que unos producen mientras que otros deciden los objetivos y la organización de la producción. Las crisis económicas cíclicas están en el DNA del capitalismo y se hacen más profundas y sincronizadas; consecuentemente se aumenta bruscamente el desempleo, se expande de nuevo el trabajo mal pagado y sin seguridad social, la vida con derechos aplastados, con guerras imperialistas para el reparto de los mercados y de los territorios.
A pesar del aumento de la productividad del trabajo las condiciones de trabajo y de vida se deterioran en todo el mundo capitalista, incluso en los Estados capitalistas más desarrollados. Los propios Estados capitalistas, sus centros de investigaciones, afirman que se reducen los ingresos de los trabajadores, mientras que se aumentan las ganancias de los capitalistas.
El hecho de que se han creado las condiciones previas para la construcción de la sociedad socialista-comunista no significa que esto sucederá automáticamente. Una razón importante es el hecho de que, a diferencia de las leyes de la naturaleza, el desarrollo social requiere la actividad humana, en este caso la lucha de clases para la abolición de la vieja sociedad y la construcción de la nueva sociedad.
El estallido de la revolución socialista (así como de todas las revoluciones sociales en la Historia de la humanidad) implica una situación en la cual se debilita la capacidad de la clase dominante de asimilar, suprimir y aplacar al pueblo.
Lenin formuló el concepto de la situación revolucionaria e  identificó las características principales objetivas y subjetivas de la sociedad en la víspera de la revolución. Sin embargo, como señaló Lenin acertadamente, no toda situación revolucionaria desemboca en una revolución. Ni la reacción de los de “abajo” ni la crisis en los de “arriba” provocarán un derrocamiento, a menos que exista un levantamiento revolucionario planificado de la clase obrera, dirigido por su vanguardia consciente.
Dicho de otro modo, para que se estalle la revolución obrera  se requiere la presencia de la vanguardia política revolucionaria, del Partido Comunista, armado con elaboraciones teóricas y con la predicción de los acontecimientos basada en la cosmovisión marxista-leninista, capaz de dirigir el levantamiento revolucionario de la clase obrera.
Desgraciadamente, la experiencia positiva de la Revolución de Octubre no fue asimilada y no prevaleció a lo largo de toda la existencia de la Internacional Comunista. En cambio, a través de un curso contradictorio, prevaleció en gran medida el concepto estratégico que, en general, planteaba como objetivo un poder o un gobierno de tipo intermedio entre el poder burgués y obrero, como poder transitorio hacia el poder socialista.
Hoy día podemos ver mejor que el esfuerzo complejo de la política de asuntos exteriores de la URSS para retrasar lo más posible el ataque imperialista y utilizar las contradicciones entre los centros imperialistas en esta dirección, está relacionada con importantes alteraciones y cambios en la línea de la Internacional Comunista que desempeñaron un papel negativo en el curso del movimiento comunista internacional en las décadas siguientes. Las alteraciones tenían que ver con la confrontación de la corriente fascista, la actitud respecto a la socialdemocracia, así como a la propia democracia burguesa. Surgió entonces la distinción política de las alianzas imperialistas de aquel período en agresivas, en las que se clasificaban las fuerzas fascistas y en las alianzas defensivas en las que se clasificaban las fuerzas democrático-burguesas.
En particular, la evaluación respecto a la existencia de un ala izquierda y un ala derecha en los partidos socialdemócratas en la década de 1930, de la que surgía la alianza con estas fuerzas, estaba equivocada, lo cual menospreciaba su transformación completa en partidos de la burguesía. Esta distinción equivocada fue mantenida incluso después de la II Guerra Mundial.
Estos cambios, objetivamente, atrapaban la lucha del movimiento obrero bajo la bandera de la democracia burguesa. Respectivamente, la distinción de los centros imperialistas entre los a favor de la paz y los a favor de la guerra, escondía el verdadero culpable por la guerra imperialista y el ascenso del fascismo, el capitalismo monopolista. Es decir, no señalaba la tarea estratégica imperativa de los Partidos Comunistas de combinar la concentración de fuerzas por la lucha por la liberación nacional o por la lucha antifascista, con la lucha por el derrocamiento del poder burgués, utilizando las condiciones de la situación revolucionaria, que se habían formado en varios países.
En general, la Internacional Comunista en sus elaboraciones estratégicas subestimó el carácter de la época y predominó la definición del carácter de la revolución teniendo como criterio la posición de un país capitalista en el sistema imperialista internacional. Es decir, se adoptaron erróneamente como criterios para la definición del carácter de la revolución el nivel mínimo de desarrollo de las fuerzas productivas de un país, en relación con el nivel superior alcanzado por las potencias líderes en el sistema imperialista internacional, así como la correlación de fuerzas negativa a expensas del movimiento obrero revolucionario.
Sin embargo, el desarrollo desigual de las economías capitalistas y las relaciones desiguales entre los Estados no se pueden abolir en el marco del capitalismo. En última instancia, el carácter de la revolución en los países capitalistas se determina objetivamente por la contradicción básica que debe resolver, independientemente de los cambios relativos en la posición de cada país en el sistema imperialista. El carácter socialista y las tareas de la revolución surgen de la agudización de la contradicción básica entre el capital y el trabajo en los países capitalistas en la época del capitalismo monopolista.
En varias elaboraciones de Partidos Comunistas, el enfoque del objetivo del poder obrero se basaba en el criterio de la correlación de fuerzas y no en la definición objetiva de la época histórica en que vivimos en base a la clase cuyo movimiento está en la vanguardia del desarrollo de los acontecimientos sociales, es decir de la actividad por la liberación social.
Sin embargo, estos errores en la estrategia del movimiento comunista internacional así como los errores cometidos por el PCUS en la elaboración de su política interna, junto con la esperada labor del imperialismo y de la contrarrevolución para socavarlo, afectaron los acontecimientos a continuación.
La Revolución de Octubre puso de manifiesto una organización superior de la sociedad, que fue radicalmente diferente de todos los sistemas que precedieron históricamente y cuyo rasgo común era la explotación del hombre por el hombre.
En aquel período se desarrollaron las nuevas instituciones de participación obrera, cuyo núcleo inicialmente era el centro de trabajo, una relación política que fue posteriormente violada, retrocediendo ante las dificultades objetivas existentes así como ante presiones subjetivas. Bajo la presión de preparación para la contribución activa de todo el pueblo ante la guerra inminente, la Constitución Soviética de 1936 generalizó el derecho a voto mediante una votación secreta universal en base al lugar de residencia. Las asambleas de delegados en cada unidad de producción como núcleos de organización del poder obrero fueron degradadas. En la práctica, se aumentó la dificultad de revocación de delegados de los órganos estatales superiores.
Se interpretaron como debilidades inevitables de la planificación central y no como resultado de las contradicciones de la supervivencia de lo antiguo, como resultado de los errores de un plan que no había sido científicamente elaborado. Así que en vez de buscar una solución a la expansión y el fortalecimiento de las relaciones comunistas de producción y de distribución, se buscó mirando hacia el pasado a la utilización de herramientas y de relaciones de producción del capitalismo. La solución se buscó en la expansión del mercado, en el “socialismo de mercado”.
Como punto de viraje se destaca el 20o Congreso del PCUS (1956), porque entonces, utilizando como vehículo el llamado “culto a la personalidad”, se adoptó una serie de posiciones oportunistas sobre cuestiones de la estrategia del movimiento comunista, de las relaciones internacionales, y, en parte, de la economía. En general, se debilitó la administración central de la planificación. En vez de planificar la transformación de los koljoses en sovjoses y sobre todo de iniciar el paso de toda la producción cooperativa-koljosiana bajo control estatal, en 1958 los tractores y otras máquinas pasaron a ser propiedad de los koljoses, una posición que había sido rechazada en el pasado.
Pocos años más tarde, a partir de la llamada “reforma Kosyguin” (1965), se adoptó la categoría burguesa del “beneficio empresarial” de cada unidad de producción individual y la vinculación de este con los sueldos de los administradores y de los trabajadores. La evaluación de la productividad de las unidades de producción socialistas teniendo como criterio el volumen de la producción fue sustituida por la evaluación del valor de su producto. El proceso de acumulación de cada unidad socialista fue desconectado de la planificación central lo cual tuvo como consecuencia el debilitamiento del carácter social de los medios de producción y de la reserva de productos. Al mismo tiempo, hasta el 1975, todas las granjas estatales, los sovjoses, habían pasado al régimen de auto-gestión completa. Todas estas medidas llevaron a la creación de las condiciones previas para la apropiación y propiedad privada, unas relaciones que estaban prohibidas por la ley.
Aproximadamente en el mismo período fue revisada además la percepción marxista-leninista sobre el Estado obrero. El 22o Congreso del PCUS (1961) describió el Estado de la URSS como Estado “de todo el pueblo” y el PCUS como un “partido de todo el pueblo”. Estas posiciones condujeron a un rápido debilitamiento y, a continuación, a la mutación de las características revolucionarias y de la composición social del Partido. La degeneración oportunista del PCUS se transformó en una fuerza abiertamente contrarrevolucionaria que se manifestó en 1987, mediante la aprobación de la ley que consolidaba institucionalmente las relaciones capitalistas bajo el pretexto de la variedad de relaciones de propiedad, de la notoria política de “perestroika” y de “glasnost”. Este evento señala el comienzo formal del período de la contrarrevolución.
Estimados camaradas:
El KKE pretende sacar conclusiones necesarias para el presente tanto de las victorias como de las derrotas amargas y la retirada del movimiento comunista. A través de un gran esfuerzo colectivo duro el KKE ha desarrollado una estrategia revolucionaria contemporánea que mejora su capacidad de organizar focos de resistencia y de contraataque avanzados en cada sector de la economía, en cada región del país.
El fortalecimiento del KKE en todos los niveles, un tema que fue discutido en el reciente 20o Congreso del Partido, es una condición previa para la promoción de su política revolucionaria.
Al mismo tiempo, el KKE lucha por el reagrupamiento del movimiento comunista internacional, de acuerdo con los principios del internacionalismo proletario y la solidaridad internacionalista de los pueblos contra el capitalismo y la guerra imperialista que se expresan a través de la consigna “Proletarios de todos los países, uníos”. Ya se han dado algunos pasos pequeños en el esfuerzo de crear un polo distintivo en base a los principios del marxismo-leninismo, a través de la “Revista Comunista Internacional” y la Iniciativa Comunista Europea.
Un componente de la estrategia contemporánea del KKE es su percepción programática del socialismo. La construcción socialista empieza con la conquista revolucionaria del poder por la clase obrera. El Estado obrero, la dictadura del proletariado, es el instrumento de la clase obrera en la lucha de clases que continúa en el socialismo con otras formas y medios. Se utiliza para el desarrollo planificado de las nuevas relaciones sociales, lo cual tiene como condición previa la frustración de los intentos contrarrevolucionarios, así como el desarrollo de la conciencia comunista de la clase obrera. El Estado obrero, como mecanismo de dominación política, es necesario hasta que todas las relaciones sociales se conviertan en comunistas, hasta que se desarrolle la conciencia comunista en la inmensa mayoría de los trabajadores, así como hasta que se consiga la victoria de la revolución, al menos en los países capitalistas más poderosos.
Estimados camaradas:
Hace 100 años, en esta ciudad, el VI Congreso del partido bolchevique tomó la decisión que significó un hito, que trazó la línea de la insurrección armada. La implementación de la decisión condujo dentro de pocos meses a que sonaron los cañones de “Aurora”. Hoy, 100 años después, los comunistas en todo el mundo están llamados a profundizar en esta trayectoria histórica, a sacar conclusiones valiosas, a trazar la estrategia revolucionaria contemporánea en sus países y a nivel internacional.
Esta es la respuesta necesaria para la confrontación del trabajo corrosivo del oportunismo, para la superación del repliegue ideológico, político y organizativo del movimiento comunista, su reagrupamiento revolucionario.
El ajuste de la estrategia de los partidos comunistas para corresponder con el carácter de nuestra época, la época de transición del capitalismo monopolista-imperialismo, al socialismo, que fue inaugurado por la Revolución Socialista de Octubre y, consiguientemente, la superación de las etapas de transición que existían en los programas de los partidos comunistas y la definición del carácter de la revolución como socialista, es objetivamente necesaria y exigible.
Esta dirección puede contribuir significativamente a la liberación de opciones políticas que operan en el marco de la gestión del capitalismo, como son los llamados “gobiernos de izquierda” y la alianza con la socialdemocracia, dar un impulso a la lucha antimonopolista-anticapitalista, a elaboraciones que se basan en las exigencias de la lucha de clases y pueden contribuir significativamente en la preparación del factor subjetivo, en la concentración de fuerzas obreras y populares en la lucha por el derrocamiento del capitalismo y la construcción del socialismo-comunismo.
V.I. Lenin writes about Engels: “A great fighter and teacher of the proletariat!”
| August 7, 2017 | 6:55 pm | Frederick Engels, Karl Marx, V.I. Lenin | 1 Comment

Tuesday, August 8, 2017

V.I. Lenin writes about Engels: “A great fighter and teacher of the proletariat!”

“Frederich Engels”

By Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.
Written in autumn 1895, First published in 1896 in the miscellany Rabotnik, No. 1-2.
Source: V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972 via Marxists Internet Archives.

What a torch of reason ceased to burn, 
What a heart has ceased to beat!

On August 5 (new style), 1895, Frederick Engels died in London. After his friend Karl Marx (who died in 1883), Engels was the finest scholar and teacher of the modern proletariat in the whole civilised world. From the time that fate brought Karl Marx and Frederick Engels together, the two friends devoted their life’s work to a common cause. And so to understand what Frederick Engels has done for the proletariat, one must have a clear idea of the significance of Marx’s teaching and work for the development of the contemporary working-class movement. 
Marx and Engels were the first to show that the working class and its demands are a necessary outcome of the present economic system, which together with the bourgeoisie inevitably creates and organises the proletariat. They showed that it is not the well-meaning efforts of noble-minded individuals, but the class struggle of the organised proletariat that will deliver humanity from the evils which now oppress it. In their scientific works, Marx and Engels were the first to explain that socialism is not the invention of dreamers, but the final aim and necessary result of the development of the productive forces in modern society. All recorded history hitherto has been a history of class struggle, of the succession of the rule and victory of certain social classes over others. And this will continue until the foundations of class struggle and of class domination – private property and anarchic social production – disappear. The interests of the proletariat demand the destruction of these foundations, and therefore the conscious class struggle of the organised workers must be directed against them. And every class struggle is a political struggle.
These views of Marx and Engels have now been adopted by all proletarians who are fighting for their emancipation. But when in the forties the two friends took part in the socialist literature and the social movements of their time, they were absolutely novel. There were then many people, talented and without talent, honest and dishonest, who, absorbed in the struggle for political freedom, in the struggle against the despotism of kings, police and priests, failed to observe the antagonism between the interests of the bourgeoisie and those of the proletariat. These people would not entertain the idea of the workers acting as an independent social force. On the other hand, there were many dreamers, some of them geniuses, who thought that it was only necessary to convince the rulers and the governing classes of the injustice of the contemporary social order, and it would then be easy to establish peace and general well-being on earth. They dreamt of a socialism without struggle. Lastly, nearly all the socialists of that time and the friends of the working class generally regarded the proletariat only as an ulcer, and observed with horror how it grew with the growth of industry. They all, therefore, sought for a means to stop the development of industry and of the proletariat, to stop the “wheel of history.” Marx and Engels did not share the general fear of the development of the proletariat; on the contrary, they placed all their hopes on its continued growth. The more proletarians there are, the greater is their strength as a revolutionary class, and the nearer and more possible does socialism become. The services rendered by Marx and Engels to the working class may be expressed in a few words thus: they taught the working class to know itself and be conscious of itself, and they substituted science for dreams.
That is why the name and life of Engels should be known to every worker. That is why in this collection of articles, the aim of which, as of all our publications, is to awaken class-consciousness in the Russian workers, we must give a sketch of the life and work of Frederick Engels, one of the two great teachers of the modern proletariat.
Engels was born in 1820 in Barmen, in the Rhine Province of the kingdom of Prussia. His father was a manufacturer. In 1838 Engels, without having completed his high-school studies, was forced by family circumstances to enter a commercial house in Bremen as a clerk. Commercial affairs did not prevent Engels from pursuing his scientific and political education. He had come to hate autocracy and the tyranny of bureaucrats while still at high school. The study of philosophy led him further. At that time Hegel’s teaching dominated German philosophy, and Engels became his follower. Although Hegel himself was an admirer of the autocratic Prussian state, in whose service he was as a professor at Berlin University, Hegel’s teachings were revolutionary. Hegel’s faith in human reason and its rights, and the fundamental thesis of Hegelian philosophy that the universe is undergoing a constant process of change and development, led some of the disciples of the Berlin philosopher – those who refused to accept the existing situation – to the idea that the struggle against this situation, the struggle against existing wrong and prevalent evil, is also rooted in the universal law of eternal development. If all things develop, if institutions of one kind give place to others, why should the autocracy of the Prussian king or of the Russian tsar, the enrichment of an insignificant minority at the expense of the vast majority, or the domination of the bourgeoisie over the people, continue for ever? Hegel’s philosophy spoke of the development of the mind and of ideas; it was idealistic. From the development of the mind it deduced the development of nature, of man, and of human, social relations. While retaining Hegel’s idea of the eternal process of development,[1] Marx and Engels rejected the preconceived idealist view; turning to life, they saw that it is not the development of mind that explains the development of nature but that, on the contrary, the explanation of mind must be derived from nature, from matter…. Unlike Hegel and the other Hegelians, Marx and Engels were materialists. Regarding the world and humanity materialistically, they perceived that just as material causes underlie all natural phenomena, so the development of human society is conditioned by the development of material forces, the productive forces. On the development of the productive forces depend the relations into which men enter with one another in the production of the things required for the satisfaction of human needs. And in these relations lies the explanation of all the phenomena of social life, human aspirations, ideas and laws. The development of the productive forces creates social relations based upon private property, but now we see that this same development of the productive forces deprives the majority of their property and concentrates it in the hands of an insignificant minority. It abolishes property, the basis of the modern social order, it itself strives towards the very aim which the socialists have set themselves. All the socialists have to do is to realise which social force, owing to its position in modern society, is interested in bringing socialism about, and to impart to this force the consciousness of its interests and of its historical task. This force is the proletariat. Engels got to know the proletariat in England, in the centre of English industry, Manchester, where he settled in 1842, entering the service of a commercial firm of which his father was a shareholder. Here Engels not only sat in the factory office but wandered about the slums in which the workers were cooped up, and saw their poverty and misery with his own eyes. But he did not confine himself to personal observations. He read all that had been revealed before him about the condition of the British working class and carefully studied all the official documents he could lay his hands on. The fruit of these studies and observations was the book which appeared in 1845: The Condition of the Working Class in England. We have already mentioned what was the chief service rendered by Engels in writing The Condition of the Working Class in England. Even before Engels, many people had described the sufferings of the proletariat and had pointed to the necessity of helping it. Engels was the first to say that the proletariat is not only a suffering class; that it is, in fact, the disgraceful economic condition of the proletariat that drives it irresistibly forward and compels it to fight for its ultimate emancipation. And the fighting proletariat will help itself. The political movement of the working class will inevitably lead the workers to realise that their only salvation lies in socialism. On the other hand, socialism will become a force only when it becomes the aim of the political struggle of the working class. Such are the main ideas of Engels’ book on the condition of the working class in England, ideas which have now been adopted by all thinking and fighting proletarians, but which at that time were entirely new. These ideas were set out in a book written in absorbing style and filled with most authentic and shocking pictures of the misery of the English proletariat. The book was a terrible indictment of capitalism and the bourgeoisie and created a profound impression. Engels’ book began to be quoted everywhere as presenting the best picture of the condition of the modern proletariat. And, in fact, neither before 1845 nor after has there appeared so striking and truthful a picture of the misery of the working class.
It was not until he came to England that Engels became a socialist. In Manchester he established contacts with people active in the English labour movement at the time and began to write for English socialist publications. In 1844, while on his way back to Germany, he became acquainted in Paris with Marx, with whom he had already started to correspond. In Paris, under the influence of the French socialists and French life, Marx had also become a socialist. Here the friends jointly wrote a book entitled The Holy Family, or Critique of Critical Critique. This book, which appeared a year before The Condition of the Working Class in England, and the greater part of which was written by Marx, contains the foundations of revolutionary materialist socialism, the main ideas of which we have expounded above. “The holy family” is a facetious nickname for the Bauer brothers, the philosophers, and their followers. These gentlemen preached a criticism which stood above all reality, above parties and politics, which rejected all practical activity, and which only “critically” contemplated the surrounding world and the events going on within it. These gentlemen, the Bauers, looked down on the proletariat as an uncritical mass. Marx and Engels vigorously opposed this absurd and harmful tendency. In the name of a real, human person – the worker, trampled down by the ruling classes and the state – they demanded, not contemplation, but a struggle for a better order of society. They, of course, regarded the proletariat as the force that is capable of waging this struggle and that is interested in it. Even before   the appearance of The Holy Family, Engels had published in Marx’s and Ruge’s Deutsch-Franz\”osische Jahrb\”ucher[5] his “Critical Essays on Political Economy,”[6] in which he examined the principal phenomena of the contemporary economic order from a socialist standpoint, regarding them as necessary consequences of the rule of private property. Contact with Engels was undoubtedly a factor in Marx’s decision to study political economy, the science in which his works have produced a veritable revolution.
From 1845 to 1847 Engels lived in Brussels and Paris, combining scientific work with practical activities among the German workers in Brussels and Paris. Here Marx and Engels established contact with the secret German Communist League,[7] which commissioned them to expound the main principles of the socialism they had worked out. Thus arose the famous Manifesto of the Communist Party of Marx and Engels, published in 1848. This little booklet is worth whole volumes: to this day its spirit inspires and guides the entire organised and fighting proletariat of the civilised world.
The revolution of 1848, which broke out first in France and then spread to other West-European countries, brought Marx and Engels back to their native country. Here, in Rhenish Prussia, they took charge of the democratic Neue Rheinische Zeitung[8] published in Cologne. The two friends were the heart and soul of all revolutionary-democratic aspirations in Rhenish Prussia. They fought to the last ditch in defence of freedom and of the interests of the people against the forces of reaction. The latter, as we know, gained the upper hand. The Neue Rheinische Zeitung was suppressed. Marx, who during his exile had lost his Prussian citizenship, was deported; Engels took part in the armed popular uprising, fought for liberty in three battles, and after the defeat of the rebels fled, via Switzerland, to London.
Marx also settled in London. Engels soon became a clerk again, and then a shareholder, in the Manchester commercial firm in which he had worked in the forties. Until 1870 he lived in Manchester, while Marx lived in London, but this did not prevent their maintaining a most lively interchange of ideas: they corresponded almost daily. In this correspondence   the two friends exchanged views and discoveries and continued to collaborate in working out scientific socialism. In 1870 Engels moved to London, and their joint intellectual life, of the most strenuous nature, continued until 1883, when Marx died. Its fruit was, on Marx’s side, Capital, the greatest work on political economy of our age, and on Engels’ side, a number of works both large and small. Marx worked on the analysis of the complex phenomena of capitalist economy. Engels, in simply written works, often of a polemical character, dealt with more general scientific problems and with diverse phenomena of the past and present in the spirit of the materialist conception of history and Marx’s economic theory. Of Engels’ works we shall mention: the polemical work against D\”uhring (analysing highly important problems in the domain of philosophy, natural science and the social sciences),[2] The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (translated into Russian, published in St. Petersburg, 3rd ea., 1895),[9] Ludwig Feuerbach (Russian translation and notes by G. Plekhanov, Geneva, 1892),[10] an article on the foreign policy of the Russian Government (translated into Russian in the Geneva Social-Demokrat, Nos. 1 and 2),[11]splendid articles on the housing question,[12] and finally, two small but very valuable articles on Russia’s economic development (Frederick Engels on Russia, translated into Russian by Zasulich, Geneva, 1894).[13] Marx died before he could put the final touches to his vast work on capital. The draft, however, was already finished, and after the death of his friend, Engels undertook the onerous task of preparing and publishing the second and the third volumes of Capital. He published Volume II in 1885 and Volume III in 1894 (his death prevented the preparation of Volume IV).[14] These two volumes entailed a vast amount of labour. Adler, the Austrian Social-Democrat, has rightly remarked that by publishing volumes II and III of Capital Engels erected a majestic monument to the genius who had been his friend, a monument on which, without intending it, he indelibly carved his own name. Indeed   these two volumes of Capital are the work of two men: Marx and Engels. Old legends contain various moving instances of friendship. The European proletariat may say that its science was created by two scholars and fighters, whose relationship to each other surpasses the most moving stories of the ancients about human friendship. Engels always – and, on the whole, quite justly – placed himself after Marx. “In Marx’s lifetime,” he wrote to an old friend, “I played second fiddle.”[15]His love for the living Marx, and his reverence for the memory of the dead Marx were boundless. This stern fighter and austere thinker possessed a deeply loving soul.
After the movement of 1848-49, Marx and Engels in exile did not confine themselves to scientific research. In 1864 Marx founded the International Working Men’s Association,[16] and led this society for a whole decade. Engels also took an active part in its affairs. The work of the International Association, which, in accordance with Marx’s idea, united proletarians of all countries, was of tremendous significance in the development of the working-class movement. But even with the closing down of the International Association in the seventies, the unifying role of Marx and Engels did not cease. On the contrary, it may be said that their importance as the spiritual leaders of the working-class movement grew continuously, because the movement itself grew uninterruptedly. After the death of Marx, Engels continued alone as the counsellor and leader of the European socialists. His advice and directions were sought for equally by the German socialists, whose strength, despite government persecution, grew rapidly and steadily, and by representatives of backward countries, such as the Spaniards, Rumanians and Russians, who were obliged to ponder and weigh their first steps. They all drew on the rich store of knowledge and experience of Engels in his old age.
Marx and Engels, who both knew Russian and read Russian books, took a lively interest in the country, followed the Russian revolutionary movement with sympathy and maintained contact with Russian revolutionaries. They both became socialists after being democrats, and the democratic feeling of hatred for political despotism was exceedingly strong in them. This direct political feeling, combined   with a profound theoretical understanding of the connection between political despotism and economic oppression, and also their rich experience of life, made Marx and Engels uncommonly responsive politically. That is why the heroic struggle of the handful of Russian revolutionaries against the mighty tsarist government evoked a most sympathetic echo in the hearts of these tried revolutionaries. On the other hand, the tendency, for the sake of illusory economic advantages, to turn away from the most immediate and important task of the Russian socialists, namely, the winning of political freedom, naturally appeared suspicious to them and was even regarded by them as a direct betrayal of the great cause of the social revolution. “The emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself” – Marx and Engels constantly taught.[17] But in order to fight for its economic emancipation, the proletariat must win itself certain political rights. Moreover, Marx and Engels clearly saw that a political revolution in Russia would be of tremendous significance to the West-European working-class movement as well. Autocratic Russia had always been a bulwark of European reaction in general. The extraordinarily favourable international position enjoyed by Russia as a result of the war of 1870, which for a long time sowed discord between Germany and France, of course only enhanced the importance of autocratic Russia as a reactionary force. Only a free Russia, a Russia that had no need either to oppress the Poles, Finns, Germans, Armenians or any other small nations, or constantly to set France and Germany at loggerheads, would enable modern Europe, rid of the burden of war, to breathe freely, would weaken all the reactionary elements in Europe and strengthen the European working class. That was why Engels ardently desired the establishment of political freedom in Russia for the sake of the progress of the working-class movement in the West as well. In him the Russian revolutionaries have lost their best friend.
Let us always honour the memory of Frederick Engels, a great fighter and teacher of the proletariat!
[1] Marx and Engels frequently pointed out that in their intellectual development they were much indebted to the great German philosophers, particularly to Hegel. “Without German philosophy,” Engels says, “scientific socialism would never have come into being.” —Lenin.
[2] This is a wonderfully rich and instructive book. Unfortunately, only a small portion of it, containing a historical outline of the development of socialism, has been translated into Russian (The Development of Scientific Socialism, 2nd ea., Geneva, 1892). —Lenin.
TRUTH AND LIES ABOUT SOCIALISM – Dictatorship of the Proletariat: A Higher form of Democracy

Thursday, August 3, 2017

TRUTH AND LIES ABOUT SOCIALISM – Dictatorship of the Proletariat: A Higher form of Democracy
Central Council of the Communist Youth of Greece (KNE).
Published by Synchroni Epochi, 2013.
The leap that takes place during the socialist construction, i.e. during the transition from capitalism to communism, is qualitatively higher than any previous one, since communist relations, as non-exploitative, cannot be formed in capitalism. The political revolution is the precondition for these new relations to be imposed and dominate, i.e. the conquest of power by the working class and the establishment of its own state, the dictatorship of the proletariat. 
This is a basic difference in the transition to the communist socioeconomic formation in relation with the previous. In the framework of the transition from an exploitative socioeconomic formation to another, the new relations could be developed and dominate first in the confines of the previous socioeconomic formation and then, as the last part of this process, the class that was the bearer of the new relations struggled for and took power. This happened for example in relation to capitalism. 
Capitalist relations were first developed and dominated within the confines of feudalism, which brought about an unavoidable conflict between the rising bourgeois class and the class of the feudalnobility that was declining. The great bourgeois revolutions completed the absolute domination of the bourgeoisie through the seizure of political power, which of course was necessary in order for the capitalist relations to dominate everywhere and become fully developed. 
But, communist relations are non-exploitative relations. Only their preconditions are developed within capitalism. Their appearance and domination requires the abolition of capitalist ownership of the means of production, which can only be done after having overthrown capitalist power and its state.
Thus, the dictatorship of the proletariat has a ‘’double’’ duty. On the one hand to suppress and overcome the efforts of capitalists to retake the power, on the other to form and develop the new relations, a task that is longterm and includes the whole period of the socialist construction, which is the period of the social revolution.
The task of the revolutionary workers’ power is to deepen and expand the communist relations in production and distribution, to form the new communist consciousness, the new man. This task is complex and long-term and includes economic, political, cultural, educational activity of the dictatorship of the proletariat, under the guidance of the Communist Party.
The core of power and the character of the organs of power.
Revolutionary workers’ power, the dictatorship of the proletariat, expresses a higher form of democracy, having as a basic feature the active participation of the working class in the construction of the socialist society.
Democratic centralism is a fundamental principle in the formation and functioning of the socialist state the direction of the production unit, every social service. That is, the united will and action of society in the direction of socialist construction, the active participation in making and implementing decisions, the subordination of the will of the minority to the will of the majority, the ability to elect and recall the organs of power. Revolutionary workers’ power will be based on institutions that will be born from the revolutionary struggle of the working class and its allies. The bourgeois institutions will be replaced, after being overturned, by the new institutions of workers’ power.
The Communist Party of Greece through its resolutions has set some basic principles regarding the characteristics of the workers’ power, the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The representatives in the organs of power will be elected and recalled (if necessary) by the assemblies of the workers in the production unit, decisions will be made, control will be exercised . The representatives for the intermediate institutions will be elected and recalled directly ; there will be indirect representation through the assemblies of the representatives of the highest organs of power (i.e. the representatives to the intermediate organs will elect the representatives to the highest organs of power). The representatives will not have privileges, they will have responsibilities and they will be accountable ‘’to those below’’.
The organs of power that are elected by the workers in the production units have as their tasks the specialization of the central planning, the implementation of the tasks of social production, the social services, the cultural development, the protection of the revolution. There, at the level of the production unit, the participation of the working class is established and ensured, from the ‘’bottom’’ to the ‘’top’’, as is the exercise of workers’ control, the criticism of decisions and decrees, complaints about arbitrary and subjective attitudes, bureaucratic attitudes, weaknesses and deficiencies that can appear during the socialist period.  
The workers’ collectives are accountable and monitored in order to promote the collective decisions of the higher organs of the workers’ power, which have the overall responsibility of guidance, specifying the goals of each project that is decided on in the context of central planning. The effectiveness or otherwise of each project is associated with the ability to understand the scientific laws in order to produce for the expanded satisfaction of social needs. The effectiveness of the project is tested in life itself, by practical experience itself. It is confirmed by the participation of the working masses in the control and the management of power.
Workers’ participation in the control and the management of the power is guaranteed by the reduction of working time, which enables the development of the cultural and educational level of the workers. Besides, the dictatorship of the proletariat means just that: The state of the workers is based on the organization of the working masses and their participation in the management, the organisation of the production and all services, the control of the administrative machinery, planning and its implementation. 
With special provisions, it the participation in the organs of power for sections of the population who are not in the process of the production will also be ensured. For example, young men and women who are still out of production because they are in the educational process will take part in the election of representatives through the educational units. In a similar manner the participation of the non-working women, the pensioners, will be guaranteed etc. 
The highest organ of workers’ power is an organ of workers. It legislates and administers at the same time, within its framework there is a division between legislative, executive, supervisory and disciplinary powers. It is not a parliament. The representatives that participate are not permanent but subject to recall, they don’t have financial or other benefits, they are not cut off from production, from their work, but they are detached for the duration of their term. 
On the basis of the new relations of production, social ownership, central planning, workers’ control, a new revolutionary constitution and legislation is formed to correspond to these new social relations and defend them. Similarly the entire legal system, all the legal establishment of the new social relations is also formed. A new judicial system is established, which is based on revolutionary popular institutions of justice. The new courts are under the direct responsibility of the organs of the workers’ power. They consist of people’s judges that will be elected and recalled by the people itself, and by a permanent judicial staff that will be accountable to the institutions of workers’ power.
The revolutionary workers’ power replaces all the old mechanisms of administration that receives with new ones, corresponding to the character of the proletarian state. 
The new organs of the revolutionary protection and defence are based on the workers’ and peoples’ participation, but also on permanent professional personnel. In place of the bourgeois army and the repressive forces new institutions are created on the basis of the armed revolutionary struggle in order to crush the resistance of the exploiters and to defend the revolution and socialist construction. 
Historical experience of the USSR.
The new state power that emerged from the October Revolution had to face a lot of problems and complex conditions; the working class was a minority within a population of farmers that were in a state of political and cultural backwardness. It was from the very first moment encircled by the counter-revolutionary activity and imperialist attack. A huge part of the vanguard of the working class was lost because of the imperialist intervention and the civil war. Initially, it had to utilize sections of the old bureaucracy and bourgeois specialists in sectors of the economy, production and administration, while the kulaks (the bourgeoisie in the villages) maintained great power in the countryside; they even had the control of the rural soviets. The establishment and stabilization of soviet power was not an easy or quick task.
The new power was based on the institutions that were borne from its revolutionary struggle. The institutions of socialist power were the soviets, the councils of the workers representatives, the representatives of military and afterward the farmers’ soviets, hence the name Soviet Union. 
The new state that was constructed was the revolutionary workers’ power, the dictatorship of the proletariat. Based on the social ownership of the concentrated means of production and on the cooperative of peasants from the 1930’s onwards, it expressed the interests of the majority of the exploited that overthrew the power of the minority of the exploiters. The dictatorship of the proletariat proved to be a superior form of democracy, since workers’ power led the working masses into participation, control and administration of the power and of the social life in general, it drew the masses from the sidelines. Through the organization of power in the production unit, the working class was able to develop organization and discipline. Through participation in the control and administration of the production unit, there had been steps in order to change the consciousness, in order to put the social interest above the individual.
Apart from the institutions of the workers’ power, the soviets, a vast number of mass organizations were also developed; trade unions, cultural, educational, women’s, youth, where the majority of the population was organized and participated.
The direct participation of workers took place until 1936 through the nuclei of the workers’ power at the factory, the production unit, the village, but also through the function of a series of mass organizations. During the procedures for the approval of significant state laws, i.e. the constitutional amendments, assemblies of the nuclei of the workers’ power were held, where the workers expressed their opinion and, through voting, their position. 
The direct participation of workers was accompanied by the indirect election in the representative bodies as was established in the first Constitution of the USSR in 1924. The representatives were accountable and the collective unit had the right to recall them and elect others in their position. The indirect electoral representation ensured the will and participation of workers in the institutions of the soviet power. In that way the will of the majority was established. 
The soviets were not only responsible for the decision making but also for their application. During the assemblies, the nuclei of the workers’ power discussed the central and particular plans of the branches, the decisions that they made, they implemented them as working organs, with delegates that were not cut off from production.
In the Constitution of 1936, direct electoral representation was established through geographical electoral wards (and not through the production unit). As it is stated in the Resolution of the 18th Congress of the KKE: “The critical approach to these changes focuses on the need to study further the functional downgrading of the production unit as the nucleus of organisation of workers’ power, due to the abolition of the production unit principle and of the indirect election of delegates through congresses and assemblies. We need to study its negative impact on the class composition of the higher state organs and on the application of the right of recall of delegates (which according to Lenin constitutes a basic element of democracy in the dictatorship of the proletariat).”
After the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956 and under the weight of more general weaknesses, a deviation, a retreat in the Party’s perception was expressed, regarding the class-oriented revolutionary character of the state and the rejection of the scientific law for the continuation of the class struggle during socialist construction. 
Nevertheless, in the USSR the institutions’ functioning expressed an unprecedented participation of the masses in political action. According to statistical data of 1977, the local organs of state-power (i.e. the soviets of representatives) were more than 50,000 all over the country. In these soviets there were more than 2,200,000 elected representatives, namely around 1% of total population of the Soviet Union. It is also estimated that within 41 years, from the Constitution of 1936, more than 25 million people participa- ted in the soviets. In addition, it is estimated that in the organs of people’s control, at the production units, the services and the kolkhozes (production cooperatives) were elected every 2 years at the workers’ assemblies and that about 9.2 million workers participated in these organs. Comparing to this, the bourgeois parliamentary democracy seems like a joke… 
In the soviet constitution, despite any criticism that may be made, the nature of the organs was safeguarded. For example, even in the Constitution of 1977 (a period in which the opportunist turn of the CPSU was already a fact and there are serious problems in its strategic and the socialist construction), article 104 described the non-professional nature for the elected delegates and their exclusion from privileges: “Deputies shall exercise their powers without discontinuing their regular employment or duties”. In addition, article 107 specified the obligation of the deputies to report on their work and the possibility to be recalled; “Deputies shall report on their work and on that of the Soviet to their constituents, and to the work collectives and public organisations that nominated them. Deputies who have not justified the confidence of their constituents may be recalled at any time by decision of a majority of the electors in accordance with the procedure established by law.”
However, in that process there were some weaknesses. The procedure of the socialist construction constantly creates new problems that seek new solutions, and this is when the ability of the workers’ power is judged. First of all, is judged the ability of the CP to lead in accordance with the scientific laws. 
In the Soviet Union, the legacy of the old social system weigh heavy, as the new one Assembly of women in a village of the Soviet Union. 1920. Soviet power had been proved a superior form of democracy. It drew the masses from the sidelines and led them to participation, control and administration. 44 emerged from its bowels For example, from the first years of the social construction problems of detachment from the interests of the working class arose re employees of the state mechanism and especially by those who came from the old, tsarist state mechanism.
The adoption of the thesis concerning the “state of the whole people” (consolidated in the constitutional revision of 1977) cancelled out the nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat as workers’ power, rejected the vanguard role of the working class as the bearer of communist relations.
The sharpening of the problems in soviet power was a consequence of the weakening of the socialist economy through the adoption of the market reforms (q.v. first part of the publication “Truths and Lies About Socialism”), which led to the reinforcement of the individual and group interests vis-a-vis the overall interests of society. As a result, the forces that had an interest in the overthrow of socialism and the restoration of capitalism gained strength.
This development influenced the structures of power and the workers’ control which had attained a formal character. In the decade of the 1980s, through perestroika, which was the final attack by the counter-revolution, the soviet system degenerated into a bourgeois parliamentary organ with a division of the executive and legislative functions, a permanence of office holders, an undermining of the right to recall, high remuneration, etc. I.e. everything negative that was developed was an element of the forms of the bourgeois power. 
Vladimir Lenin (Video)
| July 27, 2017 | 7:38 pm | V.I. Lenin | No comments

Programa 79 – Escuela de cuadros – Que Hacer (Lenin)
| July 26, 2017 | 7:15 pm | V.I. Lenin | No comments

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
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.