Communist or opportunist conceptions about Socialism 2

In the last article I analysed the lie of Peter Mertens (actual president of the WPB): « We are no longer Stalinists ». Now I will analyse the lie of Peter Mertens: « We are no longer Maoists » A lie indeed, because the whole « renewal of the WPB since 2004 » is a CONSEQUENCE of a « Maoist » opportunist line! So Peter Mertens should say: « I am STILL Maoist »!
Considering that Ludo Marten was in 1995 still effective president of the WPB, you can say that the WPB formed an auto-critic on the earlier development of « Maoist » opportunism:

« The young Marxist-Leninist movement that developed in Europe from 1963 on (…). was marked by petit-bourgeois ideologies, whose common characteristic was anti-Stalinism. The positions of Mao Zedong that we spoken about have encouraged an interpretation of "Maoism" as a new theory opposed to Stalinism, and thus Leninism. Our party has always defended the positions stated in " The Question of Stalin" of the CCP. But the study of the theory and practise of Stalin was neglected, or forgotten. The CCP stated in 1966: “Comrade Mao Zedong developed Marxism-Leninism in an outstanding, creative way, in all realms; he has brought it up to a new, superior level" (Little Red Book. Introduction of 1966). In our Party, it was generally acknowledged that “in all realms" the ideas of Mao Zedong were "superior" to those of Stalin or even Lenin. It was not deemed necessary to study in which areas Mao Zedong had brought a true enrichment to the Marxist-Leninist theory.^[1] »

In fact on the 5^th congress in 1995, that « Maoist » opportunism was « proving » her anti Stalinist (but IN FACTanti LENINIST) conceptions with chosen quotes of Mao Zedong. The « Maoist »opportunist line was in contradiction with the LENINIST conceptions about organising the workers for the revolution, the necessity to organise the vanguard of the workers in a communist party, and for the intellectuals, that want to become communists, to LEAVE their petty-bourgeois and bourgeois class-origin and becoming a part of the working class and try to find vanguard workers among their new colleagues or to become considered as a vanguard worker by their colleagues.
Now analysing the documents of the 5^th congress in 1995 of the WPB, proves that although there is development of a true revolutionary line, the opportunist line was not defeated and the texts in which that opportunist line (you can say even a real revisionist line) is developed are accepted as congress documents.

In Fighting opportunism, to beat revisionism 6 , on this web log, I analysed further the book « Party of the Revolution » ( read here ), composed of texts that were proposed by cadres, amended and voted by the delegates (included myself)on the 5th congress of the WPB in 1995. In this article I began with an analyse of some conceptions in a specific text in « Party of the Revolution » namely: Chapter III, part 3. Those conceptions are in CONTRADICTION with other texts (now forming other chapters of that same book) proposed, amended and voted on THAT SAME 5^th CONGRESS!
To INTRODUCE his bourgeois conceptions and ideas INTO the party, that cadre-author CREATED a « Marxist-sounding » analyse with SELECTED quotes of Mao Zedong (tearing it out of the context of the original text and out of the historical context in which this text was written and out of the context of the concrete problems for which Mao had written this text. Based on these quotes, this cadre can now give a « Marxist » view on his BOURGEOIS conceptions. The conceptions about party and its vanguard role, class struggle, mobilising the masses, the function of propaganda and agitation etc. in the text ( in chapter III, part 3 of « Party of the Revolution ») proposed by a certain cadre and accepted on the 5^th congress of the WPB in 1995 « proved » with quotes of Mao Zedong, are in CONTRADICTION with the conceptions in other parts in other documents proposed by other cadres an accepted ON THE SAME congress (and now ALSO in « Party of the Revolution »). The conceptions in these parts coming out other chapters than chapter III, part 3, are mostly « proved » with quotes of Lenin. (To my opinion this is an opportunist way of doing: « proving statements with chosen quotes»)
So the « Maoist » cadre that wrote the text chapter III, part 3, does he want now« revising » « Marxism-Leninism »?
Or is he trying to prove with quotes of Mao, that Lenin is wrongly « quoted » (in text proposed to the congress by other party cadres) to prove in the eyes of that cadre « dogmatic or leftist » conceptions in those texts or by those cadres?
In fact he is using the concept of « the mass line » (proved by chosen quotes of Mao) to win the party for in fact MENCHEVIC conceptions. His concept of « the mass line » is in CONTRADICTION with the BOLCHEVIC conceptions. But a close study of whole texts of Mao Zedong will show you that Mao Zedong always supported the BOLCHEVIC conceptions (formulated by Lenin) and opposed all MENCHEVIC conceptions as they emerged sometimes in the CCP.
Read the whole article further here -- >

In 1995 there existed apparently some conscious revisionist (say « renegade ») elements in the WPB who »protected their conceptions with chosen quotes of Mao and ……Stalin.
So, the « promotion » of the revisionist line on the fifth congress (against the revolutionary line based on the conceptions of Lenin in for example in « what to be done ») was using here « Maoist) opportunism "covered" with some …….« Stalinism ». The chapter « the mass-line » BEGINS with two WELLCHOSEN quotes of….. Stalin. (You can read more about the contradictions on the fifth congress of the WPB here)
To prove the revisionist aspect of the whole text I give here just the first chosen quote of Stalin.
So in that chapter of « Party of the revolution » our revisionist writes:

« Bureacratism installs itself step by step under the cadres; it is fading the fundamental conceptions about mass line.
In the conclusion of The History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolshevik) Stalin says:
« Lastly, the history of the Party teaches us that unless it has wide connections with the masses, unless it constantly strengthens these connections, unless it knows how to hearken to the voice of the masses and understand their urgent needs, unless it is prepared not only to teach the masses, but to learn from the masses, a party of the working class cannot be a real mass party capable of leading the working class millions and all the labouring people.
A party is invincible if it is able, as Lenin says, “to link itself with, to keep in close touch with, and, to a certain extent if you like, to merge with the broadest masses of the toilers—primarily with the proletariat, but also with the non-proletarian toiling masses.” (Lenin, Collected Works, Russ. ed., Vol. XXV, p. 174.)
A party perishes if it shuts itself up in its narrow party shell, if it severs itself from the masses, if it allows itself to be covered with bureaucratic rust. »^[2]

The author-cadre linked it to his « Maoist » opportunism, freeing it from every possible anti Stalinist accusation from other cadres or party-members:

« It is clearly to notice that Mao inspired himself on the statements of Stalin and that it is absolutely wrong to say that « Stalin was not applying the mass line » (…) defended in the name of a wrong understood « Maoism ». (…)
Mao formulates the mass line with the following words:
« In all the practical work of our Party all correct leadership is necessarily "from the masses, to the masses". This means: take the ideas of the masses (scattered and unsystematic ideas) and concentrate them (through study turn them into concentrated and systematic ideas), then go to the masses and propagate and explain these ideas until the masses embrace them as their own, hold fast to them and translate them into action, and test the correctness of these ideas in such action. Then once again concentrate ideas from the masses and once again go to the masses so that the ideas are persevered in and carried through. And so on, over and over again in an endless spiral, with the ideas becoming more correct, more vital and richer each time. Such is the Marxist theory of knowledge.^[3] »

And then he can further develop his revisionist line further….. deceiving the delegates that voted for the real revolutionary congress documents AND ALSO for this revisionist document, WHICH IS IN OPPOSITION with the real revolutionary documents.

The choice of the quote of Stalin proves the conscious revisionist character of the author because it is clear that he knows very well his Marxist classics to pick up just that quote. It is the LAST part of the LAST text out of the CONCLUSION of a book that give all the general lessons that the Bolsheviks could give about the development to revolution and the development of the revolution itself and the building of socialism. He picks out of a whole of lessons, so out of his context just a quote (that is in fact metaphysical!) where Stalin says something about « masses ». But the whole book, even the whole « conclusion » is in contradiction with the line that the author develops in his text «the mass line».
For example you can choose other quotes out of this book that are in contradiction with the conceptions developed in the congress text titled «the mass line»:

« 2) Lenin showed that to extol the spontaneous process in the working- class movement, to deny that the Party had a leading role to play, to reduce its role to that of a recorder of events, meant to preach khvostism (following in the tail), to preach the conversion of the Party into a tall-piece of the spontaneous process, into a passive force of the movement, capable only of contemplating the spontaneous process and allowing events to take their own course. To advocate this meant working for the destruction of the Party, that is, leaving the working class without a party—that is, leaving the working class unarmed. But to leave the working class unarmed when it was faced by such enemies as tsardom, which was armed to the teeth, and the bourgeoisie, which was organized on modern lines and had its own party to direct its struggle against the working class, meant to betray the working class.
3) Lenin showed that to bow in worship of the spontaneous working-class movement and to belittle the importance of consciousness, of Socialist consciousness and Socialist theory, meant, in the first place, to insult the workers, who were drawn to consciousness as to light; in the second place, to lower the value of theory in the eyes of the Party, that is, to depreciate the instrument which helped the Party to understand the present and foresee the future; and, in the third place, it meant to sink completely and irrevocably into the bog of opportunism.
“Without a revolutionary theory,” Lenin said, “there can be no revolutionary movement. . . . The role of vanguard can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory.” (Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. II, pp. 47, 48.) ^[4]»

Out of the chapter « Conclusion » in « HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION (Bolsheviks) » where our revisionist author-cadre chose his quote(in italic-fat):

« What are the chief conclusions to be drawn from the historical path traversed by the Bolshevik Party?
What does the history of the C.P.S.U. (B.) teach us?
1) The history of the Party teaches us, first of all, that the victory of the proletarian revolution, the victory of the dictatorship of the proletariat, is impossible without a revolutionary party of the proletariat, a party free from opportunism, irreconcilable towards compromisers and capitulators, and revolutionary in its attitude towards the bourgeoisie and its state power. (…)
The history of the Party teaches us that the ordinary Social-Democratic Party of the West-European type, brought up under conditions of civil peace, trailing in the wake of the opportunists, dreaming of “social reforms,” and dreading social revolution, cannot be such a party.
The history of the Party teaches us that only a party of the new type, a Marxist-Leninist party, a party of social revolution, a party capable of preparing the proletariat for decisive battles against the bourgeoisie and of organizing the victory of the proletarian revolution, can be such a party. (…)
2) The history of the Party further teaches us that a party of the working class cannot perform the role of leader of its class, cannot perform the role of organizer and leader of the proletarian revolution, unless it has mastered the advanced theory of the working-class movement, the Marxist-Leninist theory. (…)
Before the Second Russian Revolution (February 1917), the Marxists of all countries assumed that the parliamentary democratic republic was the most suitable form of political organization of society in the period of transition from capitalism to Socialism. It is true that in the seventies Marx stated that the most suitable form for the dictatorship of the proletariat was a political organization of the type of the Paris Commune, and not the parliamentary republic. But, unfortunately, Marx did not develop this proposition any further in his writings and it was committed to oblivion. Moreover, Engels’ authoritative statement in his criticism of the draft of the Erfurt Program in 1891, namely, that “the democratic republic . . . is . . . the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat” left no doubt that the Marxists continued to regard the democratic republic as the political form for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Engels’ proposition later became a guiding principle for all Marxists, including Lenin. However, the Russian Revolution of 1905, and especially the Revolution of February 1917, advanced a new form of political organization of society—the Soviets of Workers’ and Peasants’ Deputies. As a result of a study of the experience of the two Russian revolutions, Lenin, on the basis of the theory of Marxism, arrived at the conclusion that the best political form for the dictatorship of the proletariat was not a parliamentary democratic republic, but a republic of Soviets. (…)
3) The history of the Party further teaches us that unless the petty bourgeois parties which are active within the ranks of the working class and which push the backward sections of the working class into the arms of the bourgeoisie, thus splitting the unity of the working class, are smashed, the victory of the proletarian revolution is impossible.
The history of our Party is the history of the struggle against the petty-bourgeois parties—the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, Anarchists and nationalists—and of the utter defeat of these parties. If these parties had not been vanquished and driven out of the ranks of the working class, the unity of the working class could not have been achieved; and if the working class had not been united, it would have been impossible to achieve the victory of the proletarian revolution.
If these parties, which at first stood for the preservation of capitalism, and later, after the October Revolution, for the restoration of capitalism, had not been utterly defeated, it would have been impossible to preserve the dictatorship of the proletariat, to defeat the foreign armed intervention, and to build up Socialism.
It cannot be regarded as an accident that all the petty-bourgeois parties, which styled themselves “revolutionary” and “socialist” parties in order to deceive the people—the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, Anarchists and nationalists—became counter-revolutionary parties even before the October Socialist Revolution, and later turned into agents of foreign bourgeois espionage services, into a gang of spies, wreckers, diversionists, assassins and traitors to the country.
“The unity of the proletariat in the epoch of social revolution,” Lenin says, “can be achieved only by the extreme revolutionary party of Marxism, and only by a relentless struggle against all other parties.” (Lenin, Collected Works, Russ. ed., Vol. XXVI, p. 50.)
4) The history of the Party further teaches us that unless the Party of the working class wages an uncompromising struggle against the opportunists within its own ranks, unless it smashes the capitulators in its own midst, it cannot preserve unity and discipline within its ranks, it cannot perform its role of organizer and leader of the proletarian revolution, nor its role as the builder of the new, Socialist society. (…)
It may seem to some that the Bolsheviks devoted far too much time to this struggle against the opportunist elements within the Party, that they overrated their importance. But that is altogether wrong. Opportunism in our midst is like an ulcer in a healthy organism, and must not be tolerated. The Party is the leading detachment of the working class, its advanced fortress, its general staff. Sceptics, opportunists, capitulators and traitors cannot be tolerated on the directing staff of the working class. If, while it is carrying on a life and death fight against the bourgeoisie, there are capitulators and traitors on its own staff, within its own fortress, the working class will be caught between two fires, from the front and the rear. Clearly, such a struggle can only end in defeat.
The easiest way to capture a fortress is from within. To attain victory, the Party of the working class, its directing staff, its advanced fortress, must first be purged of capitulators, deserters, scabs and traitors. (…)
“With reformists, Mensheviks, in our ranks,” Lenin said, “it is impossible to achieve victory in the proletarian revolution, it is impossible to retain it. That is obvious in principle, and it has been strikingly confirmed by the experience both of Russia and Hungary . . . In Russia, difficult situations have arisen many times, when the Soviet regime would most certainly have been overthrown had Mensheviks, reformists and petty-bourgeois democrats remained in our Party. . . .” (Lenin, Collected Works, Russ. ed., Vol. XXV, pp. 462-63.)
“Our Party,” Comrade Stalin says, “succeeded in creating internal unity and unexampled cohesion of its ranks primarily because it was able in good time to purge itself of the opportunist pollution, because it was able to rid its ranks of the Liquidators, the Mensheviks.
Proletarian parties develop and become strong by purging themselves of opportunists and reformists, social-imperialists and social-chauvinists, social-patriots and social-pacifists. The Party becomes strong by purging itself of opportunist elements.” (Joseph Stalin, Leninism.)
5) The history of the Party further teaches us that a party cannot perform its role as leader of the working class if, carried away by success, it begins to grow conceited, ceases to observe the defects in its work, and fears to acknowledge its mistakes and frankly and honestly to correct them in good time.
A party is invincible if it does not fear criticism and self-criticism, if it does not gloss over the mistakes and defects in its work, if it teaches and educates its cadres by drawing the lessons from the mistakes in Party work, and if it knows how to correct its mistakes in time.
A party perishes if it conceals its mistakes, if it glosses over sore problems, if it covers up its shortcomings by pretending that all is well, if it is intolerant of criticism and self-criticism, if it gives way to self complacency and vainglory and if it rests on its laurels. (…)
6) Lastly, the history of the Party teaches us that unless it has wide connections with the masses, unless it constantly strengthens these connections, unless it knows how to hearken to the voice of the masses and understand their urgent needs, unless it is prepared not only to teach the masses, but to learn from the masses, a party of the working class cannot be a real mass party capable of leading the working class millions and all the labouring people.
A party is invincible if it is able, as Lenin says, “to link itself with, to keep in close touch with, and, to a certain extent if you like, to merge with the broadest masses of the toilers—primarily with the proletariat, but also with the non-proletarian toiling masses.” (Lenin, Collected Works, Russ. ed., Vol. XXV, p. 174.)
A party perishes if it shuts itself up in its narrow party shell, if it severs itself from the masses, if it allows itself to be covered with bureaucratic rust.^[5] »

So what Stalin here said about « connections with the masses » is an unbreakable part of a whole of lessons. It is revisionism to choose just that quote out of his context, to prove your IDEA of what is the truth.
In 1999, after an election campaign, in which the WPB participate, a resolution is written by the Central Committee: « the Resolution of 1999 ». Officially it referred to the whole 5^th Congress, to all the congress documents, so to the whole book « Party of the revolution ». BUT IN FACT, as I shall prove in the next article, it referred ONLY to the revisionist text in the Chapter III, part 3: The mass line.

---

^[1] « On certain aspects of the struggle against revisionism - For the unity of all communists, in defence of proletarian internationalism », by Ludo Martens, Report presented to the Seminary March 1995, 9 - 12 India.

^[2] Stalin, History of the Communist party of the Soviet Union (Bolshevik), facsimile Het Progressieve Boek, uitgave van 1938, p.476-477.

^[3] Citaten van Voorzittter Mao Tsetoeng, (het rode boekje), Uitgeverij Vereniging België China, 1971, p.136-137. But IN FACT coming out of: "Some Questions Concerning Methods of Leadership" (June 1, 1943), Selected Works, Vol. III, p. 119.

^[4] Out of « HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION (Bolsheviks) », EDITED BY A COMMISSION OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE C.P.S.U. (B.) AUTHORIZED BY THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE C.P.S.U. (B.), p.36.

^[5] Out of « HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION (Bolsheviks) », EDITED BY A COMMISSION OF THE CENTRAL COMM I TT EE O F THE C.P.S.U. (B.) AUTHORIZED BY THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE C. P. S. U. (B.), p 353, « Conclusion », From Marx to Mao ML © Digital Reprints 2006

Communist or opportunist conceptions about Socialism 1

The WPB (Workers Party of Belgium) is international recognized as a real communist and revolutionary party.
In contributions to the International Communist Seminar, cadres or the WPB, and even its president Peter Mertens is reassuring everybody that the WPB remains a communist party, basing her line and ideology on Marxist analyse of the world and its contradictions. (read more about the contradictions between contributions on the ICS, beginning here)
But conform the conclusions of its second, third, fourth and fifth congress, one can say that the WPB has with Peter Mertens a president who is anticommunist, idealist and metaphysical instead of dialectical and materialist and has a bourgeois class position. All those congress documents are in fact also warning that Peter Mertens is flirting with the national-socialist ideology.
In fact, instead of being president of a communist party, he should be expelled because of his bourgeois class position.
It says a lot of those « older » militants and cadres, still working in the WPB, that they didn’t notice al those developments, and even cooperate with the « renewal » of the WPB.
I will prove this statements in the following articles, beginning with Peter Mertens first lie….

The first lie of Peter Mertens: « we are no longer Stalinist »
On their website the WPB reproduced, without any comment, so with a total agreement, an article of a newspaper (« De Morgen », see http://antwerpen.pvda.be/nieuws/article/de-morgen-pvda-beschouwt-zich-niet-langer-als-extreem-linkse-partij-1.html, 25 februari 2008,), under the title « the WPB is considering herself no more as an extremist party ».
In that article Peter Mertens is saying: « We are no longer Stalinist ….»

So Peter Mertens is pretending that the WPB (and himself) was in « earlier » days, Stalinist!
But what are documents of the WPB saying about refuting Stalin or « Stalinism »?
First of all, in none of all the documents of AMADA or later the WPB, is said that the organisation considered herself as « Stalinist ». So that is the first aspect of the lie of Peter Mertens when he is saying « we are no longer Stalinists ».
Secondly, in the documents of her fifth congress of the WPB in 1995 (in the book « Party of the revolution » - you can read a regularly updated translation of that book here) - Peter Mertens was then member of the Central Committee of the WPB - is said:

« Inside the WPB there is a big unity about political questions that has been reasons of splitting by a lot of organisations. This unity is a result of large debates and has resulted in definitive documents »

There is a list of all those definitive documents, included:

« From Tien An Men until Timisoara »
« USSR, the velvet counterrevolution »
« Another view of Stalin »

Further is said in the same documents of the fifth congress:

« the WPB has become stronger out of the anticommunist rollercoaster of 1989-1991. How was it possible to resist? How was it possible for the WPB to strengthen her revolutionary unity? In the book « From Tien An Men until Timisoara » one can find all the answers on this questions. »

Well in the book « From Tien An Men until Timisoara », which is considered as a PARTY-document:

« We have noticed that in numerous departments of our party Stalin has been already ten years « liquidated in silence ». The points of views officially accepted after the struggle against the liquidation-movement in 1983 (the Second congress of the WPB - Nico) have had no practical effect. How much members and cadres have in those ten years studied books about the historical experiences of the bolvhevic party and texts of Stalin?
At the same moment the whole party was put under dally pressure of the anticommunist and ant Stalinist propaganda. The ideological forming of the party-members is done for a important part and by a sneaky way by the bourgeois media. Just a few members and cadres dare to attack frontally in this matter, just because they knew the position about this of the party. Without open struggle, without political confrontation a lot of prejudges and bourgeois lies can silently be installed.
We have to care that all new members and cadres get a firm class position about the ant Stalinist and anticommunist questions. One can not become a real communist without struggle to change thoroughly his conceptions about Stalinism, because those conceptions are inevitably moulded by bourgeois propaganda.
Hereabout the party has to install a fixed working method. Essential texts of Stalin has to be integrated in the formation, specially those texts which allow to rectify the false image that one has about the theoretical word of Stalin. That image is been spread around by all anticommunist opportunists. ^[1]»

So one can say at least that the members or delegates on a Congress of the WPB had to judge that Peter Mertens is an « anticommunist opportunist ».

In a next chapter I will analyse the statement of Peter Mertens: « We are no longer Maoists^[2]».
Well, Mao Zedong is quoted about Stalin in the book, « Another view of Stalin »(EPO, 1994), a book that has to be considered as an integrated part of congress documents of the WPB, as I proved before:

« Congratulating Stalin is not a formality. Congratulating Stalin means supporting him and his cause, supporting the victory of socialism, and the way forward for mankind which he points out, it means supporting a dear friend. For the great majority of mankind today are suffering, and mankind can free itself from suffering only by the road pointed out by Stalin and with his help. ^[3]»

I will prove that Peter Mertens is IN FACT a « maoist » (as Deng Xiaoping was BEFORE the dead of Mao Zedong). But it is clear why that Peter Mertens is refuting Mao Zedong himself, because Mao Zedong confronts him here with the fact that he is an anti revolutionary….!

But in a next article further about this statement of Peter Mertens : « We are no longer Maoists»

---

^[1] « From Tien An Men to Timisoara », p. 182-183 (the quote translated by me, Nico), edions of the WPB, EPO, 1994.

^[2] In a article of « De Morgen », put on the website of the WPB,without any comment, so with a total agreement, see http://antwerpen.pvda.be/nieuws/article/de-morgen-pvda-beschouwt-zich-niet-langer-als-extreem-linkse-partij-1.html, 25 februari 2008,), under the title « the WPB is considering herself no more as an extremist party ».

^[3] SELECTED WORKS OF MAO TSE-TUNG, Volume II, p335. « STALIN, FRIEND OF THE CHINESE PEOPLE, December 20, 1939« , From Marx to Mao ML © Digital Reprints 2006 / 2007

Fighting opportunism to beat revisionism 10

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)