Category: Venezuela
As Protests Rage in Venezuela, US Media Silent on Pro-Government Movements

As Protests Rage in Venezuela, US Media Silent on Pro-Government Movements

© REUTERS/ Carlos Garcia Rawlins
Latin America

Get short URL
0 10010

As clashes between the Maduro government in Venezuela and the opposition are getting more and more fierce, the US media is openly calling for an economic war against the Bolivarian Revolution government, blaming it for casualties on both sides of the conflict.

Speaking to Radio Sputnik’s Brian Becker, author, journalist and lecturer Arnold August noted that the US media has a very clear stance: that Maduro and his Bolivarian Revolution government are responsible for everything bad that is happening in the country. Those who do not blame Maduro directly nonetheless report on the issue in such a way as to create the impression that Maduro is responsible, August said.

​For example, an April 24 opinion piece by the Washington Times is entitled “Venezuela’s coming civil war: Maduro is arming his thugs to crush the democratic hopes of his desperate people.”

Reuters took a more subtle approach, reporting casualties among civilians without naming who fired the shots, on April 25.

“A 42-year-old man who worked for local government in the Andean state of Merida died from a gunshot in the neck at a rally in favor of president Nicolas Maduro’s government, the state ombudsman and prosecutor’s office said,” the report reads.

“Another 54-year-old man was shot dead in the chest during a protest in the western agricultural state of Barinas, the state prosecutor’s office added without specifying the circumstances,” it continues.

Major media, such as the Miami Herald and CNN, reported in the last few days that the US will have to consider imposing “serious sanctions” on Venezuela, should Maduro fail to host “free and fair” elections, allowing opposition leaders to campaign, August recalled. The US media also purposefully omits reports of demonstrations by the Chavistas — the supporters of the acting government.

The Green Left news website, on the other hand, reported “tens of thousands” of pro-government activists. Deutsche Welle carefully refrained from separating the sides, giving an overall estimate of 6 million people protesting on April 19.  August claimed there were 3 million pro-government protesters across the whole country. All agree that these demonstrations have been the largest in the history of the nation.

August mentioned an opinion piece written for CNN by Jose Miguel Vivanco and Tamara Taraciuk Broner, “high-ranking members” of Human Rights Watch, August explained. Human Rights Watch is heavily financed by George Soros, who is known to be a big proponent of regime change around the world.

Vivanco and Taraciuk’s piece promotes the narrative that all of the deaths and violence in the country are “rightfully” blamed on Maduro, and that international pressure is needed to restore “human rights and democracy in Venezuela.”

“This is one big lie, if I may be quite frank,” August commented.

The US may be up to more than just harsh words in the media, August noted. On April 24, the Maduro government seized a General Motors factory in Venezuela, forcing the company to flee the country, leaving 2,700 people without jobs.

Officially, GM did not pay its taxes and refused to conform to “basic economic and financial rules,” August explains.

But he speculates that GM could have been involved in a darker scheme, similar to what happened in Chile in the 1973 coup d’état against Salvador Allende government.

“Main enterprises in Venezuela — General Motors, but there are others as well — were specifically organizing to hoard goods, to keep it away from the people, in order to create problems, to create a situation where people are starving, etc.,” August told Becker, adding that US companies also cut flights to Venezuela in an attempt to harm its income from tourism.

“It is undeniable that there are internal problems and weaknesses in the economy under the Bolivarian Revolution, but the main feature of the problem at this time is what has been induced and still being induced by the US and its allies,” he said.

Venezuela’s Opposition Openly Calls for Economic War

Venezuela’s Opposition Openly Calls for Economic War

  • Julio Borges, President of the National Assembly, participates in a rally against Venezuela

    Julio Borges, President of the National Assembly, participates in a rally against Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro in Caracas. | Photo: Reuters

Published 23 April 2017 (6 hours 36 minutes ago)

The opposition leader’s plan is to prevent the government from receiving loans from international banks, which could affect the whole country.

The head of Venezuela’s National Assembly, Julio Borges, has sent more than a dozen letters to major banks asking them not to carry out transactions with the Venezuelan government in order to block the administration of President Nicolas Maduro from receiving financing, the Associated Press reported.

US Has Given Green Light for Coup in Venezuela: Maduro

Borges sent letters warning international banks that they should be worried about their reputation if they support Maduro with financing in his bid to revitalize the economy.

Among the letters, the head of the assembly sent a document to John Cryan, director of Deutsche Bank on Thursday, warning him of the consequences of carrying out financial transactions with Venezuela.

“The national government, through the Central Bank, will try to exchange gold from the national reserve for dollars in order to remain in power unconstitutionally,” Borges wrote.

Borges, one of the founders of the opposition Justice First party, told Cryan “that by supporting this gold exchange, you would be acting in favor of a government recognized as dictatorial by the international community.” International mainstream media regularly echoes the opposition claim that the democratically-elected Maduro government is a dictatorship.

Here’s Your Guide to Understanding Protest Deaths in Venezuela

The lawmaker said this strategy was part of a reform approved by the rogue National Assembly — controlled by the right-wing opposition but declared in contempt by the top court — to cancel any debt by the government that is not explicitly approved by the legislative branch.

Amid a wave of opposition protests in recent weeks, Maduro has repeatedly accused Borges of being a mastermind behind a coup attempt in the country and warned that justice will be served to those responsible for fomenting violence.

Meanwhile, opposition leaders have announced that they will continue to protest, as they have done for the past three weeks in demonstrations on the streets of Caracas that have often turned violent and led to the deaths of at least 22 people.

Maduro said authorities had arrested more than 30 protesters engaged in violence, including an alleged leader of a group of rioters who was caught with explosives.

Venezuelan authorities have called on the Organization of American Staes to condemn the violence perpetrated by the opposition.

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

Thursday, April 20, 2017

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



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

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

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

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

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

On the view concerning the “Deep State”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Socialist construction and the state under socialism.

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

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

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

[1] “State and Revolution”, V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, V. 25
[2] “Critique of the Gotha Programme”, K. Marx
[3] “State and Revolution”, V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, V.25
[4] “State and Revolution”, V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, V.25
[5]From SYRIZA’s governmental programme.
[6] The Real News Network, Interview (28/1/2015) with Leo Panitch, Professor of Political Science at York University, Toronto, Canada.
[7] Article of Paul Mason (1/9/2015), former BBC journalist and former economics editor for Channel 4 News.
[8] 5th Congress of the PEL. Political Document: “Refound Europe, create new progressive convergence”
[10] “Statement of the CC of the KKE on the Military Coup of the 21st of April 1967. “Rizospastis”, 5 March 2017.
[11] Ibid
[12] “The impending catastrophe and how to combat it”, V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, V.25
[14] ibid
[15]  “Karl Marx”, V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, V.21
[16]J.V. Stalin, Works, V. 7
[20] “A great beginning”, V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, V. 29
[21]Report of the CC of the KKE to the 20th Congress of the party, March 2017.
[23] «State and Revolution”, V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, V. 25.
Chavistas Flood Caracas in Mega Anti-Imperialist March

Chavistas Flood Caracas in Mega Anti-Imperialist March

  • A sea of red on the streets of Caracas.

    A sea of red on the streets of Caracas. | Photo: Reagan Des Vignes/Telesur

Published 19 April 2017

Tens of thousands demanded that their nation’s sovereignty be respected.

It was a deeply emotional day for Venezuela’s Chavistas, who emerged from their homes in the tens of thousands, celebrating the country’s independence and, at the same time, denouncing continued attempts by the right-wing opposition and by hostile international entities encouraging imperialist intervention.

Rex Tillerson Warns Venezuela Against ‘Silencing Opposition’

There were symbolic cries by those who attended — cries of peace, humility and those of an overwhelming desire to survive interventionist attacks.

President Nicolas Maduro called it “an incredible day of victory” — according to state media, VTV — as he addressed the beaming faces, teary eyes and attentive stares. He said that “peace has triumphed again over the right-wing attempts to sow terrorism in the country.”

“When the Bolivarian people are in the street, there is peace,” he added, “Today they tried to take power again and we have defeated them again the coup plotters, the corrupt right-wing and the interventionists.”

This is the sixth time this month alone that Chavistas have shown their support for the Maduro government against the MUD coalition’s protest actions, which re-energized itself after the April 1 Supreme Court decision to rescind on assuming temporary control of the national assembly’s powers.

A group of supporters hold individual elements of a sign that, when translated, reads, “A people of peace.” | Photo: Reagan Des Vignes/Telesur

Maduro also described Primero Justicia party member, and national assembly head Julio Borges as a hypocrite, a coward, and a clown. Borges has taken a lead in the organization of sustained opposition marches, all of which have turned violent.

The president’s ire over the recent violence has been strongly echoed by Chavistas across Venezuela, many of whom carried signs with anti-imperialist, freedom and peace symbols.

Chavistas hold signs expressing unity, love and anti-terrorism. | Photo: Reagan Des Vignes/Telesur

Chavistas get emotional during the singing of the national anthem, just before President Nicolas Maduro takes the stage. | Photo: Reagan Des Vignes/Telesur

Caracas resident Argeny Valencinio was all smiles at the march. He said Venezuela has come a long way in the battle for peace and prosperity. He laments, however, that there is still a long way to go before it can be won.

“There is a lot that we could accomplish, if only we could put our differences aside and work as a unit. However, I am proud to be here, defending my people! My patria.”

Two teenagers huddle together to write a note to hand to the president’s partner, Cilia Flores, as she passes through the crowd. | Photo: Reagan Des Vignes/Telesur

PSUV President, Diosdado Cabello, also spoke to the tens of thousand, saying that Venezuela’s right-wing opposition has declared itself subordinate to the demands of the United States, which he said has openly called for international intervention.

“We warn all those traitors, who go abroad to ask for the invasion of Venezuela. They will be treated as enemies of this country. Today the people went out into the streets, to send a message of peace, but very firmly to tell imperialism and its lackeys that they are ready to fight. We are in the street ready to defeat them.”

More marches are planned in the coming weeks as the MUD opposition coalition continues to demand that Supreme Court judges be ousted and that an elections timeline be announced.

US Has Given Green Light for Coup in Venezuela: Maduro

  • Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro

    Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro | Photo: Reuters

Published 18 April 2017

According to the Bolivarian leader, the U.S. government wrote up a coup scenario for opposition leader Julio Borges.

A day before opposition leaders convened more protests in Caracas calling for the ouster of Venezuela’s government, the country’s leader has accused the United States of working with right-wing leaders towards a coup.

Venezuela: Maduro Accuses Right-Wing of Buying Protest Violence

“The U.S. government, the State Department has given the green light, the approval for a coup process to intervene in Venezuela,” President Nicolas Maduro said, speaking from the Miraflores Palace.

Maduro said that security forces had arrested an “armed commando group sent by the opposition in order to attack the mobilization called by the right-wing for Wednesday to generate violence and deaths in the country.” An investigation has been opened to determine who is behind the plan.

According to the Venezuelan leader, who also pointed to a U.S. State Department statement issued Tuesday evening warning of an “international response” should “peaceful protests” face repression, the U.S. government wrote up a coup scenario for opposition leader Julio Borges.

The “scenario” Maduro referred to consists in generating violence and deaths before blaming the Venezuelan government for allegedly violently attacking political opponents. Then the plot leaders would demand immediate elections, ahead of Maduro’s official end of term in 2019.

“No more coups in Venezuela, no more plots,” said Maduro, adding that he activated a public security plan to maintain order.

What Everybody Needs to Know About Venezuela Protest Deaths

The Venezuelan leader also called on government supporters to take the streets in the defense of the 18-year Bolivarian Revolution, which has seen an unprecedented internal and external attack in recent months.

The demonstrations come after weeks of opposition-led anti-government demonstrations calling for the ouster of the country’s Supreme Court judges as well as President Nicolas Maduro. According to reports, among those killed in the ensuing violence include a 13-year-old boy who was shot Wednesday when opposition protesters entered a social housing complex and an 83-year-old woman who was not able to receive medical attention due to opposition roadblocks.

Opposition protesters have vandalized various areas in Caracas in recent days causing economic damage estimated at around 50 billion bolivars, President Maduro announced Sunday. A high school, a community health center, various subsidized food markets and several government ministries have also reportedly been severely affected.

The opposition MUD alliance has called for a “Mega March” protest in Caracas on Wednesday and estimate a large turnout with promotions flooding social media.

Officials fear that there could be violence should they attempt to redirect marches to areas where pro-government demonstrators will be gathered.

Venezuela Opposition Has No Vision Beyond Violence: Pollster
| April 15, 2017 | 6:20 pm | political struggle, Venezuela | No comments

  • Venezuelan opposition protesters attack a police officer in Caracas.

    Venezuelan opposition protesters attack a police officer in Caracas. | Photo: Reuters

Published 15 April 2017 (7 hours 22 minutes ago)


Ninety percent of Venezuelans reject violent protests, according to Venezuelan polling firm Hinterlaces.

Mainstream media outlets covering ongoing political unrest in Venezuela portray opposition protesters as peace-loving progressives who want to democratize their country.

74 Percent of Venezuelans Don’t Trust the Opposition: Survey

Turning a blind eye to their ongoing violence, these outlets paint a rose-colored picture of what Venezuela would look like if the opposition took power.

But for Oscar Schemel, president of independent Venezuelan polling firm Hinterlaces, the opposition has no vision beyond violence.

“Standing before a country that demands answers and solutions, the opposition isn’t presenting any proposal other than ‘get rid of (President Nicolas) Maduro now,’” Schemel wrote in a recent editorial. “It’s the same thing they tried with Chavez, and it didn’t work at all.”

Earlier this month, Hinterlaces conducted polls across Venezuela, asking residents about their thoughts on the Bolivarian Revolution, the opposition and rising tensions between both parties. Here’s what they found:

– 6 percent approve international intervention to remove Maduro from power.

– 87 percent disapprove of any international military intervention in Venezuela.

– 90 percent reject violent right-wing protests.

– 83 percent are in favor of dialogue.

– 67 percent think the priority of this dialogue should be to resolve the country’s economic problems.

Hinterlaces’ findings echo polls conducted by Venezuelan polling organization Meganalisis, which released a study last month revealing that 74.3 percent of Venezuelans don’t trust the country’s right-wing opposition.

“From the National Assembly a series of expectations were created that unfortunately were not fulfilled,” Venezuelan political scientist Jose Vicente Carrasquero said about Meganalisis’ survey, El Nuevo Heraldo reports.

Carrasquero referenced the promises made by the opposition-controlled National Assembly to reverse socialist legislation.

What Everybody Needs to Know About Venezuela Protest Deaths

Since winning a majority in the National Assembly during Venezuela’s 2015 parliamentary elections, right-wing opposition lawmakers have been scrambling to preserve legitimacy.

Not only is there ideological infighting between the MUD’s centrist Popular Will and right-wing Justice First parties, but the opposition lawmakers have also been accused of filibustering and blocking progressive legislation proposed by the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela.

For these reasons, Schemel believes the opposition would have tremendous challenges governing Venezuela if they were to take power.

“For the national and international ultra-right, they aren’t proposing coexistence or alternation (of political power), let alone consensus,” Schemel also wrote in his editorial.

“On the contrary, they (the opposition) are engaged in a strategy of creating chaos and neurosis across Venezuelan society, to destroy Chavismo, reconfigure the national-popular culture and impose despair (on the people).”

Venezuela: ¡No a la ilegalización del PCV! Solidarity with the Communist Party of Venezuela

Friday, April 14, 2017

Venezuela: ¡No a la ilegalización del PCV! Solidarity with the Communist Party of Venezuela
Dear comrades,

Receive classist and revolutionary greetings from the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Venezuela (PCV), as we call on your attention to offer you an explanation on the threat of illegalization that currently weighs on our Party for the fourth time during our 86 years of struggles.

For more than a year, both publicly and in private meetings, PCV has stated repeatedly that it will not submit itself to the stipulations set forth by the Rules for the Renewal of Enrollment Lists of Members of Organizations for National Political Purposes. These new Rules, issued on March 4th, 2016, by the National Elections Council (CNE for its Spanish initials), contain some terms and conditions which had never been applied before, which are unacceptable to the dignity and safety of a revolutionary organization and its members, and which overstep the current legal framework.

According to the new procedures established by these Rules, it is now mandatory that the membership of all parties must register directly with CNE, distorting the legally and historically established relationship between the electoral authorities and the political parties, and between these and their respective members. This not only goes against the Statutes and organic principles of PCV as a party of cadres, but also creates a situation potentially dangerous to the internal life of our organization, since if tens, hundreds or thousands of people who are not really members of our Party, get registered as such by CNE, then these may claim the right to participate in internal decisions and debates, including the election of our leadership and candidates.

Also, the Rules provide for open and public access, through the CNE website, to the personal data of those who register as members of each party, which violates the right of citizens to maintain privacy about their political choices, and weakens the principle of secret vote. This, in turn, puts at risk the personal security and employment stability of Communists and other left-leaning militants, since neo-fascists and public and private employers will be able to access this information and use it to identify and attack revolutionaries. Moreover, the new Rules issued in 2016, compared to the old ones of 2011, not only reduced from six months to 14 hours the period for registration of enrollment lists, but also established equal procedures and requirements for the parties that did not take part in the previous two elections and those, like ours, that did participate.
After the publication of these Rules, the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of PCV sent on June 10th, 2016, a letter to CNE explaining our objections and proposing amendments, but the electoral authorities never replied, thus disregarding their constitutional duty to provide «a timely and adequate response» to any proper request by the citizenry (Article 51 of the National Constitution); this also demonstrates the lack of political will that has prevailed within CNE to seek a solution to this situation.
For more than fourteen months, there have been several bilateral meetings and exchanges with senior Government officials, as well as broader meetings between representatives of the different parties that make up the «Simón Bolívar» Great Patriotic Pole and drive the Bolivarian process, including leaders of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV). In all of those opportunities, PCV has expressed our objections to the Rules issued by CNE, objections which were shared by the majority of the parties therein. However, while some national leaders of PSUV have expressed their «concern» about this matter, others have publicly stated that the «renewal» process is legal and should be carried out by CNE as established; therefore, the official position of the party in Government still remains unclear.
Earlier this year, it became evident that CNE was getting ready to enforce the process of «renewal» under these opprobrious Rules, shielding itself behind the Law on Political Parties, Public Meetings and Demonstrations, which dates back to 1965 when it was enacted during the most repressive moment of the «Puntofijista» regime as part of its efforts to police and control leftist parties. This Law, despite an amendment in 2010, still maintains its repressive contents and nature, and thus clashes with the principles and postulates of the National Constitution of 1999, especially with regards to the promotion of people’s participation, activism and control over public administration.
Therefore, on February 16th, 2017, PCV filed at the Constitutional Court of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ for its Spanish initials) an appeal for the annulment of Article 25 of the Law on Political Parties, which establishes the requirement of «renewal» of political parties, on the grounds that such a requirement is unconstitutional. At the same time, our Party also requested precautionary measures to suspend the process of «renewal», which nevertheless was started by CNE on March 4th.
Almost two months have elapsed since PCV filed the appeal in the TSJ, and more than a month since CNE started the process of «renewal», and still the Constitutional Court has not made any decision neither on our request of precautionary measures nor on the merits of our appeal. This is a violation of the constitutional principle that establishes the right «to obtain promptly the relevant decision» from the courts (Article 26 of the National Constitution).
According to the schedule announced by CNE for the «renewal» process, PCV is due on May 20th and 21st; PCV will not participate and will not recognize as its members any people who may register as such during those days. Between July 9th and 19th, the final report on the results of the process will be announced; CNE has already asserted that any party that is not «renewed» by then will be «canceled» (such is the wording in the Law), and therefore will lose its legal status and entity, with all the implications that this entails.
This would outlaw the main, oldest and most persistent instrument for the struggle of the Venezuelan working class and people against imperialist domination and capitalist exploitation. Such a threat takes place in the midst of a severe crisis of the extractionist and dependent capitalist model of our country; an increase in the interventionist policies of imperialism against the moral reference that the Bolivarian process still represents; and a sharpening of class contradictions and of the struggle for power between the pro-imperialist right-wing bloc and the forces that support the Government, and even within each of these blocs.
In this context, the Central Committee of PCV proposes to the Communist, Workers and Revolutionary Parties of the World that they consider the possibility of participating in the campaign «No to the illegalization of PCV!», thus expressing the opinion of the international Communist and anti-imperialist movement in support of PCV and for the protection of the rights and constitutional guarantees of our Party. We suggest that this opportunity be used also for the denunciation of imperialist interference against the sovereignty and self-determination of the Venezuelan people.
Thanks in advance for the support and internationalist solidarity you may offer us.
With Communist greetings, on behalf of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Venezuela (PCV):
Oscar Figuera G.
General Secretary
Carolus Wimmer.
Secretary for International Relations.
Caracas, April 12th, 2017.
* * * 


Queridos camaradas, 
Reciban un clasista y revolucionario saludo del Comité Central del Partido Comunista de Venezuela (PCV), en ocasión de dirigirnos a ustedes para alertarles y explicarles acerca de la amenaza de ilegalización que pesa sobre el PCV por cuarta vez en sus 86 años de lucha. 
Durante más de un año, públicamente y en reuniones cerradas, el PCV ha expresado y ratificado que no se someterá a las «Normas para la renovación de nóminas de inscritos de las organizaciones con fines políticos nacionales» –establecidas el 4 de marzo de 2016 por el Consejo Nacional Electoral (CNE)–, por cuanto éstas contienen parámetros que nunca se habían aplicado anteriormente y que son inaceptables para la dignidad y seguridad de una organización revolucionaria y de su militancia, además de que extralimitan el marco legal vigente. 
Entre los nuevos parámetros de estas «normas», se impone que la militancia de los partidos ahora debe registrarse directamente ante el CNE, desnaturalizando la relación establecida legal e históricamente del Poder Electoral con los partidos políticos y de éstos con sus respectivas militancias; lo cual no sólo contraviene los Estatutos y principios orgánicos del PCV como partido de cuadros, sino que, además, constituye un peligro para el funcionamiento interno de la organización, ya que si decenas, cientos o miles de personas que no sean realmente militantes de nuestro partido se registran como tales en el CNE, posteriormente podrán reclamar el derecho a participar en la elección de los órganos dirigentes y de las candidaturas del PCV. Además, las «normas» prevén el acceso público, a través del sitio Web del CNE, a los datos de quienes se registren, lo cual violenta el derecho de toda persona a resguardar su opción política, debilita el principio del secreto del voto, y pone en riesgo la seguridad personal y la estabilidad laboral de la militancia comunista y de izquierda, ya que la derecha neofascista y los patronos públicos y privados podrán acceder a esta información y arremeter contra las y los revolucionarios. Por si fuera poco, las «normas» de 2016, en comparación con las de 2011, además de reducir de seis meses a 14 horas el lapso para el registro de la nómina, equiparó los procedimientos y requisitos para los partidos que no participaron en las últimas dos elecciones y los que sí participamos. 
Tras la publicación de estas «normas», el Buró Político del CC del PCV consignó una comunicación al CNE, el 10 de junio de 2016, con sus objeciones y propuestas de modificación; pero nunca fue respondida por el ente electoral, lo cual –además de constituir un incumplimiento de la obligatoriedad constitucional a brindar una “oportuna y adecuada respuesta.” (artículo 51)– evidencia la falta de voluntad política que ha prevalecido en el CNE para buscar una solución a la situación planteada. 
A lo largo de más de 14 meses, se han realizado múltiples reuniones bilaterales e intercambios con altos funcionarios del Gobierno y reuniones amplias entre representantes de los partidos que integramos el Gran Polo Patriótico «Simón Bolívar» y que impulsamos el proceso bolivariano, incluidos dirigentes del PSUV; en todas ellas el PCV ha expresado sus observaciones a las «normas» del CNE para la “renovación”, las cuales son compartidas por la casi totalidad de estos partidos. Sin embargo, mientras algunos dirigentes nacionales del PSUV han expresado “comprensión” sobre el tema, otros han declarado públicamente que el proceso del CNE está apegado a derecho y que debe ejecutarse tal como está establecido; por lo que no se ha definido claramente cuál es la posición oficial del partido de Gobierno. 
A principios de este año ya se veía inminente que el CNE impondría el proceso de “renovación” con esas «normas» abusivas, escudándose en la pre-constitucional Ley de partidos políticos, reuniones públicas y manifestaciones –que continúa aplicándose a pesar de que data de 1965, como parte de la política policial de control a los partidos de izquierda en el momento más represivo del régimen puntofijista, y que, a pesar de una «reforma parcial» en 2010, mantuvo su contenido y carácter restrictivo, no adaptándose a los principios y postulados de la Constitución de 1999, especialmente en lo relativo a la promoción de la participación, protagonismo y control popular en la gestión pública–. 
Por ello, el PCV introdujo, el pasado 16 de febrero, en la Sala Constitucional del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia (TSJ), un recurso de nulidad por inconstitucionalidad del artículo 25 de la ley de partidos políticos –que es el que establece la “renovación”– y en dicho escrito también solicitó medidas cautelares para que se suspendiera provisionalmente el proceso de “renovación” adelantado por el CNE, el cual inició el pasado 4 de marzo. 
Han transcurrido casi dos meses desde que el PCV introdujo el recurso en el TSJ y más de un mes desde que el CNE inició el proceso de “renovación”, sin que la Sala Constitucional del máximo órgano rector del Poder Judicial haya emitido decisión sobre las medidas cautelares ni sobre el fondo del petitorio, a pesar del postulado constitucional que consagra el derecho “a obtener con prontitud la decisión correspondiente” de los órganos de administración de justicia (artículo 26). Según el cronograma del CNE para el proceso de “renovación”, al PCV le corresponde el 20 y 21 de mayo, entendiéndose que el PCV no reconocerá como militante a ninguna persona que se registre esos días; y, del 9 al 19 de julio se dará a conocer el informe final de este proceso, ya habiendo expresado el CNE que el partido que no se “renueve” será “cancelado” –que es el término empleado por la ley–, por ende, perderá su estatus legal y su personalidad jurídica, con todas las implicaciones que esto conlleva. 
Estas acciones, que amenazan con ilegalizar al principal, histórico y más consecuente instrumento de lucha de la clase obrera y del pueblo trabajador venezolano contra la dominación imperialista y la explotación capitalista, se produce en una coyuntura de crisis del modelo capitalista rentista y dependiente de nuestro país, de incremento de la política intervencionista del imperialismo contra el referente moral que sigue siendo el proceso bolivariano, y de agudización de las contradicciones clase y de lucha por el poder entre el bloque de fuerzas de la derecha pro-imperialista y el bloque de las fuerzas que respaldamos al Gobierno, y más aún a lo interno de estos bloques. 
En este contexto, el Comité Central del PCV plantea a los Partidos Comunistas, Obreros y Revolucionarios del mundo, que consideren asumir la Campaña «¡No a la ilegalización del PCV!», manifestando la posición del movimiento comunista y antiimperialista internacional en apoyo al PCV y a que se respeten sus derechos y las garantías constitucionales; al tiempo que se ratifique la denuncia del injerencismo imperialista que atenta contra la soberanía y autodeterminación del pueblo venezolano. 
Agradeciendo de antemano el apoyo y la solidaridad internacionalista, se despiden, con saludos comunistas, 
Por el Comité Central del Partido Comunista de Venezuela (PCV):
Oscar Figuera G.
Secretario General
Carolus Wimmer
Secretario de Relaciones Internacionales
Caracas, 12 de abril de 2017.