As I said in my former article I will argue now basing myself of the documents of KKE itself.
« KKE, a profoundly patriotic party, is the genuine and worthy inheritor of the national, democratic and revolutionary traditions of the Greek people. It fights against every manifestation of fascism, nationalism, chauvinism and racism. It defends the rights of minorities and migrants.
Throughout its history, KKE has linked the struggle for socialism with the struggle for national independence and democracy, for a Greece independent of imperialist economic, political and military organisations. It refuted the theory of Greece as a “poor relative”. It proved that the Greek people can rely first of all on its own material and intellectual forces. Communists were in the front ranks during the heroic years of EAM and the National Resistance and in the fight of the Democratic Army. (…)
« KKE has proven to be a consistent and steadfast defender of the culture of the Greek people. » …
« KKE Programme presents, along general lines, its overall strategy for socialism and the main tasks of the class struggle. [1]»
My opinion: some opportunism is occurring in the form of IDEALISM
The KKE starts with the IDEA (which is, that is my opinion, is not historically correct) that Greece is (still) in the stage of struggle for national independency against imperialist colonial intervention, so the struggle for the bourgeois national democratic revolution leaded by a sort of nationalist united front were communists (and the working class) has the leadership, giving « patriotism » and « nationalism » an anti-imperialist character.
So there is a conception of the existence of a Greek capitalism with Greek capitalists, that has to be overthrown by a socialist revolution, inside the boundaries of Greece (Which boundaries, those after the Second World War?), after the anti-imperialist struggle for national independency.
But to my opinion the main form of capitalism in his actual imperialist stage is NOT Greek capitalism (with Greek capitalists) next to French capitalism with French capitalists, Belgian capitalism with Belgian capitalists or Luxembourg capitalism with Luxembourg capitalists. So Greece, France, Belgium or Luxembourg is not « the » respectively capitalist state-apparatus that has to be broken by respectively the Greek, French, Belgian or Luxembourg working class led by the Greek, French, Belgian and Luxembourg communist parties.
So for me the next quote out of the program of KKE is a conclusion of a Marxist analyse. But that Marxism is « contaminated » by opportunism, here for example IDEALISM because the analyse starts with an IDEA and not with historical (materialist) FACTS:
« Greek capitalism is in the last stage of its development, i.e. at its state monopoly level. In our country, the material conditions exist for the socialist transformation. This can be seen in the level of development of Greek capitalism and in its contradictions. (…)
Greece is in an intermediate and dependent position in the world imperialist system. There are historic reasons for this: the slow and difficult beginning of capitalism in Greece, which took place under the direct economic, political and military involvement of powerful capitalist states and under conditions of dependence on foreign capital. Monopoly capitalism appeared in Greece later than in the developed capitalist countries, and after the international imperialist system had already been created, with the result that it rested on a relatively low material and technical base. In the post-dictatorship years, state monopoly capitalism developed further, dependence on foreign monopoly capital and international imperialism grew. During recent decades, particularly during the 1980s, Greece became more organically adapted to the imperialist system within the framework of the European Community (now the European Union) and NATO, through its participation in international inter-state agreements.
With the Treaty of Maastricht, the intervention of the imperialist centre of the European Union was upgraded. To its statutory ability to intervene in the economic sphere was added the ability to intervene on the political and military level, and in the fields of foreign policy and so-called internal security.
International monopoly capital controls the Greek economy and its main sectors of activity. The transnationals and monopolies won new positions, penetrated more deeply and play a direct role in sectors critical to the shaping of political behaviour, and of the social consciousness of the working class and the people. Greek capital has become more closely linked with the interests of international monopoly capital. The dominant trend is the interconnection between local capital and its dependence on and adjustment to more general planning. The general trend to involvement does not change the fact that sections of local capital have been hard hit by the transnationals.
The Greek oligarchy maintains close connections with all three imperialist centres. Greece’s membership in the European Union does not revoke the dominant role of the United States, particularly in the political and military fields. Under present conditions, the local oligarchy aims to play the role of intermediary between the European Union and NATO on the one hand, and the countries of the Balkans and the Mediterranean on the other. It wants to enhance its economic, political and military presence in the region. These ambitions make it more willing to take part in imperialistic expansionist plans, while bringing it up against the analogous ambitions and expansionist schemes of the Turkish oligarchy, increasing the competition between them and the problems between the two countries. Thus greater possibilities are created for intervention and for the major imperialist forces to take advantage of these differences.
Greece has fallen into line with the restructuring imposed by its membership in this imperialist system and is adjusting its economy, mainly in the direction of the service sector.[2] »
To my opinion, the main form of capitalism are the globalised monopolies (often linked to each other in a production-chain of natural resources, refining, production of intermediary products, higher assemblage, logistic divisions for transport, storage, distribution, financing,…..). For the collective interests of the capitalists ABOVE the ever reappearing of competition, between monopoly-cartels but also (often in the form of COST-competition) between departments, divisions IN a monopoly, in the production for a similar end product but based on differently obtained intermediary products or differently obtained natural (or artificial) resources, the monopolies developed suitable instruments with a capitalist STATE-character. But a (capitalist) state apparatus (as a Marxist conception) is NOT falling together with the boundaries of a by the imperialists recognized COUNTRY (in a certain historical of actual situation), where the bourgeois speaks ALSO about « state » or « nation-state ».
I think that the European Union is such a capitalist state-apparatus, still in development, and having problems to become a centralised capitalist state because of internal problems (competition, contradictions between monopoly-capitalists and « littler » forms of capitalists enterprises…) inside the capitalist class or the bourgeoisie. It is a state-apparatus for the most important form of capitalist enterprise: the capitalist monopolies that consider the European Union as their interior market. That state is THE instrument to install higher level of exploitation, and organise and support the imperialist ambitions of « her » capitalist monopolies.
To give a historic example (as illustration, NOT a analogy): the advise of Marx to the communards was to do revolution, NOT commune by commune (in different regions of France) but to do a revolution organising the workers and peasants on a NATIONAL scale to break the centralised French state, which was at that moment far from centralised because of internal contradictions inside the ruling class of capitalists and feudalists. France was a conglomerate of departments, cities and villages, with different kind of money-systems and different languages. There was even not a « nationalist » feeling among the workers and peasants.
The « old » nation-(member-) states are a part of this state: the European Union. The most « national » laws and political measures, so for example all forms of increasing the exploitation level of the « national » workers, are dictated, influenced, sometimes « advised » on an European level, by a commission or council that is even not elected. The « national » governmental leaders themselves have themselves (being member of those commissions or councils on European level) cooperated on different European levels to the realising of those European regulation and laws and are therefore agree to follow on « national » level in one way or another those European « dictates », « laws » or « advises ».
There is a development of the instruments for repression: in fact at this moment the NATO is a state-repression apparatus, or the organisation of a European intervention force (out of the different « national » defence force).
You will see that, whenever in Europe there will be an uprising that will get more and more revolutionary character or when it will form a danger for the European Union (look for example at the war against former Yugoslavia) there will be a quick development of a European army (to repress resistance against increased exploitation levels AND against the colonial-like exploitation by the European Union of regions in Africa, Asia and the Middle-East.
So, « national » governmental policy of privatisation, deterioration of all kinds of systems of social security, increasing of exploitation level, SEEMS only to have a « national » character. So it is just dividing the working class when you are lust organising class struggle against the « national » governmental policy. It is in the interests of the working class, bringing them in a stronger position and making them more political conscious, to organise them in one big worker-fight- movement (that will have more the character of Soviets than « just a unity-union ») against the European Union state of the monopoly-capitalists.
Capitalism in Greece, France, Belgium and Luxembourg does NOT mean for the biggest part of monopoly-capitalism that Greece, France, Belgium or Luxembourg is their « homeland » or even « their national head-office”.
In fact is a genuine policy of « divide and rule » (and the communists have to weapon the working class in Europe against this) to use lower levels of the state-apparatus like « national » governments (but now in fact regional government) to pass al the regulations about « privatisation » (that has to give the possibility to the monopolies to form much bigger monopolies over the borders of the member-states) and increasing higher exploitation by the « regional » governments.
So spontaneously, the class struggle against these European laws and regulations will be regional…. And so bring a division in the European working class.
The communists have to avoid this trap of organising the working class on member-country-level for a socialist revolution that is limited to the boundaries of that member-country (of which the government forms a lower level of the European Union of the monopolies):
« Nature of the revolution the anti-imperialist anti-monopoly y democratic front of struggle and the transition to socialism
The Greek people will be delivered from the bonds and effects of capitalist exploitation and of imperialist oppression and dependence when the working class and their allies bring about the socialist revolution and proceed to building socialism and communism. The internal developments that have taken place in Greece and the changes in its position within the imperialist system during the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s contributed to making the material conditions for socialism in Greece mature sooner. In our time, the time of the transition from capitalism to socialism, the struggle between the classes is directed toward the resolution of the primary contradiction between capital and labour. The revolutionary change in Greece will be socialist. (…)
The anti-imperialist, anti-monopoly front of struggle objectively expresses a broader social base, the interests of the great majority of the people who suffer the effects of actions by the transnationals and of Greece’s membership in imperialist organisations, the interests of the working class, working farmers, the middle strata in the city, and social movements which are fighting to uphold democratic rights and to reject imperialist plans that are to the detriment of the people and of peace. It rallies the working people in the sector of culture and science who resist the sub-culture, commercialisation and manipulation. [3]»
Is this not a form of meta-physics? Mixing part and whole and making of the whole just a quantitative addition of the parts.
« Basic programme directions and goals of struggle
(….) Among the main programme directions and goals of struggle are:
Disengagement from the European Union, as a basic condition for utilising Greece’s domestic development potential, for a real improvement in the working people’s living standard.
Refusal to take part in imperialist plans and interventions, in any way whatsoever. Common action with other movements in neighbouring countries for a regional system of security in the broader South (Balkans, Mediterranean, Middle East). Disentanglement from the web of political and military dependence on the US, the European Union and NATO. Withdrawal from NATO and from the Western European Union. Removal of the US-NATO bases and nuclear weapons. Development of common action with peoples and countries to dismantle NATO and other military-political organisations.
A national defence policy which safeguards Greece’s security and ensures an anti-imperialistic orientation in international relations and in the region. No ceding of sovereign rights to imperialist organisations must be sanctioned. [4]»
To My opinion, the EU has to be fought, not only by different worker organisations in the different member countries of the EU and mobilised by a lose coordination of different NATIONAL communist (so vanguard of that working class) organisations. No the EU, the state apparatus of the monopolies has to be torn down by the organised working class of Europe, a struggle mass organisation of the working class that put the socialist revolution and the expropriation of the capitalists an building their worker state leading a socialist plan economy on the agenda. This organised working class of Europe will be led by their vanguard-organisation the European Communist Party.
The NATO has to be fought as the armed antirevolutionary imperialism protecting repression force.
Further:
« Proletarian internationalism
A Marxist Leninist party of a new type, as a party of the working class, is internationalist by its very nature, is an integral part of the world’s communist movement. "Capital is an international force. To vanquish it, an international workers' alliance, an international workers' brotherhood is needed In order to defeat it, an international union of workers, their international brotherhood is required… We are internationalists "[5], wrote Lenin.
At the same time it is obvious that, after the defeat of socialism in USSR and other Eastern European countries, the old Trotskyite argument raises its ugly head again, i.e., the claim that "the socialism cannot win in one country or even in a group of countries and that socialism will either win everywhere, or nowhere". It is also typical that in our country even the so-called "new left" (in reality – right opportunist and social democratic political forces) have adopted these views and continuously voice them, speaking about "overcoming the limits of struggle at the national level” and even of the "socialist changes in the whole of the EU simultaneously".
And here we have to remember what Marx said about these matters. In "The Communist Manifesto" he stresses that the working class first of all will have to defeat the capitalists of their own country and by doing so to help the worldwide process of building of a classless society. This is what the Manifesto says: "Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie"[6]. Of course, we know that Lenin has written more deeply on this subject. Especially clearly he defined the difference between the victories of socialism in one country, in several countries and the full and irreversible victory of socialism.
On the eve of the October revolution, in 1916, in his article, "The Military Program of the Proletarian Revolution", Lenin wrote: "The development of capitalism proceeds extremely unevenly in different countries. It cannot be otherwise under commodity production. From this it follows irrefutably that socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will for some time remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois"[7]
The conclusions of Lenin’s theory are just as valid today. Unevenness, that expresses itself, among other things, in the fact that economic crisis does not occur simultaneously in different countries, is also linked to the political destabilisation that is a product of both objective and subjective factors, such as existence of a powerful communist party and implementation of a correct strategy, along with the policy of coalitions that would allow the possibility of serious mass mobilisation. So, all the talk about "socialism" within the whole EU, requiring simultaneous ripening of all objective and subjective factors that would lead to a radical revolution within the whole EU, is nothing but more empty talk. Its only purpose is to "disarm" the workers’ movement of each country in their struggle to overturn the capitalist power in their own country. In other words, this is a call to come to terms with the capitalist system.
Those who claim that the national struggle "has been overcome" or "overtaken" and is no longer relevant, do not explain in what way the international situation will change, how exactly the current balance of power will be overcome if, as is claimed, it will not break at the weakest link being a separate country or a group of countries. Is it really possible for the national movement of any country to give up its own initiatives and to sit and wait for they day when other countries will be ripe for revolution? At the very best we are dealing here with tragic self delusion. Such a concept of "waiting" is only useful for those who do not want to take their revolutionary responsibility on a national level.
As written in our party program, "The interaction between the national and international does not refute the fact that internal contradictions and conditions play a major role in the revolutionary process. The revolutionary popular movement in each country should direct its fight toward fostering socialism, thus offering its own contribution to improving the international correlation of forces [8]“[9]»
« Our position towards the Party of the European Left
That is why our party, despite being loyal to the timeless motto of Marx and Engels "Proletarians of the world, unite!" and being in favour of greater co-ordination of the work of communist parties at the international level and working out of a unified anti-imperialist strategy, nevertheless does not approve of the creation of "European parties". Especially when we are talking about parties "baked" according to some recipe concocted by the European imperialist centre.
We are openly against those communist parties who took the initiative of the creating Party of the European Left (PEL), a creation respectful of EU directives concerning the principles for the foundation of European parties, and we will openly continue our fight against them.
But that’s not the end of the story. With every passing day it becomes more and more clear that the PEL not only expresses the concrete ideological orientation of collaboration with capitalism, but also has the aim of dividing not just the workers movement, but all anti-imperialist, anti-monopolist forces. More than that, they intervene in the internal affairs of communist parties, using various means of applying pressure in order to be included as "observers". They even demand from each party that expresses the wish to join their ranks, that first it should condemn "Stalinism", and by Stalinism they mean any point of view that they do not agree with. They make enormous efforts in order to remain united and they change their positions with the speed of light where necessary in order to get recognition of the European Parliament. These are the forces that claim to be such big enemies of the European imperialist centre! In reality, they are not against European structures and institutions; their only goal is to prevent the unity of action of communist parties.
Playing our internationalist role, our party takes very seriously the current situation in the international communist movement, paying special attention to bilateral relations between parties and to international and regional conferences and meetings. In these current new conditions, the KKE pleads for co-ordination and mutual co-operation in anti-imperialist and anti-multinational activity; for mutual efforts to form alliances. But it’s obvious that this alone is not enough. The goal of the communist movement is to resolve not just the worst consequences of imperialist policies, not just what we usually call the problems of the day. All these problems, such as poverty, unemployment, war, state terrorism etc, are nothing else but obvious consequences of imperialist strategy. Capitalist restructuring is not some evil deed of reactionaries, just an internal, integral need of the capitalist system itself.
The goal of the communist parties is not just the struggle against such reactionary restructuring, but the overturning of the system of exploitation, preparing for the building of socialism. That is why we so much insist that we should find systematic ways and various forms of a dialogue between communist parties that share similar positions. The KKE attaches great importance to such initiatives, in searching for ways and means to form a clearly outlined presence of the communist movement.
The KKE supports the formation of an international front of anti-imperialist, anti-monopolist forces [10]» ….
Here is, as I see it an (opportunist) flight forward.
The, in fact, reformist coalition of « left » parties in the party of European left (a construction for the participation at European elections mainly) is taking as a negative argument for NOT building a European vanguard organisation of the European working class.
The discussion about the possibility of the October revolution in the old tsarist empire (in fact built out of a central Russian « country » and annexed other « countries ») seen as « one country », against the argumentation that the revolution is only possible in all the countries in the world together, is used to put forward first the revolution in Greece (and for the Luxembourg communists first in Luxembourg?) this is a opportunist argumentation using the Marxist works as an encyclopaedia where you can pick suitable quotes to prove your predisposed IDEA: the revolution that the KKE has to lead is the revolution in the « country » Greece. (And which boundaries, those after the Second World War?)
These forms of opportunism that (as I see it) exist inside the KKE, can be a possible source of development of revisionism.
Starting with an IDEA and then seeking for « Marxist » arguments to prove that idea, using the concept of existing analogies in the history, is a way that conscious revisionists are using to prove their bourgeois political line and ideology with « Marxist phraseology ».
When the members of a communist party are « formed » in such a wrong manner of using Marxism, they will not be aware of the taking over of the leadership of the party by revisionists. (For me the proof in the practice is the evolution of the Workers Party of Belgium (WPB).
And of course when the members of a certain party are not aware of development of opportunism, than they can be not be aware of development of revisionism out of opportunism in sister organisations. I think that that is his happening in for example the International Communist Seminar (I wrote about these contradictions in this article)
But at other hand, the good formation that the KKE leadership is promoting inside their organisation, the strong points of analyse, the militant practice of the members that forms a test of the correctness of their program, organising discussions based on democratic centralism about the most important analyses, are arguments of a trust that the KKE will overcome opportunism.
And in fact they made a good contribution in the discussion: what is concretely « socialism ». That is important because opportunism and revisionism will become clear in the formulation of what will be the result of which kind of revolution, which power will be leading the building of socialism, and what is in fact “socialism” and what is “socialism” in relation of “communism”?
I will treat this in a following article.
[1] Programme of KKE, may 1996
[2] Programme of KKE, may 1996
[3] Programme of KKE, may 1996
[4] Programme of KKE, may 1996
[5] V.I.Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 430, Pp.. 43 (Russian version) 293, Letter to the Workers and Peasants of the Ukraine. A propos of the Victories over Denikin, December 28, 1919
[6] K.Marx and F.Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party [§1 Bourgeois and Proletarians]; http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html
[7] V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 23, The Military Program of the Proletarian Revolution, [§1], September 1916; http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/miliprog/index.htm
[8] Program of KKE, http://inter.kke.gr/Documents/docprogr/docprogr5/
[9] 16th International Communist Seminar, « The validity and current relevance of the October Revolution of 1917 for the 21st century, Brussels, 4-6 May 2007 (icsbrussels.org), « The necessity for a revolutionary party of a new type in present conditions », Eliseos Vagenas, Member of the Central Committee and of the International Department, KKE, Communist Party of Greece (KKE)
[10] 16th International Communist Seminar, « The validity and current relevance of the October Revolution of 1917 for the 21st century, Brussels, 4-6 May 2007 (icsbrussels.org), « The necessity for a revolutionary party of a new type in present conditions », Eliseos Vagenas, Member of the Central Committee and of the International Department, KKE, Communist Party of Greece (KKE)
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten