The fact that it was not possible for the 15^th International Meeting of communist and workers’ parties that took place in Lisbon in 2013 to issue a Joint Statement intensified the discussion concerning the situation of the international communist movement and the question of its unity.

In the framework of this discussion we see completely schematic and simplistic positions that avoid using the specific criteria that arise from our worldview, from historical experience, from the contemporary development of capitalism, and the necessity to resolve the basic contradiction (between capital and labour) that governs  capitalism as this would require a self-critical examination of strategic guidelines and the monitoring of whether they respond to the current needs of the class struggle, the struggle for socialism-communism.

The effort to slander the communist parties that struggle against capitalism and highlight the necessity and timeliness of socialism is a sign of  great weakness. Even more so when the 15^th IMCWP is used in a selective way despite the fact that many parties exposed the bankrupted strategy of “left governments”, highlighted the necessity of the struggle for revolutionary change and opposed the effort to impose a joint statement which was far removed from the principles our worldview and functioned against the political, ideological independence of several communist parties.

However, things have always been more complex than the scholastic assessments like “right-wing or left-wing opportunism” as some of our comrades in other countries sought to present the controversy that took place at the 15^th International Meeting, comrades who refuse to draw conclusions from the course of the communist movement. Because opportunism must be exposed in a concrete way and not with “centrist” aphorisms, taking into account that in the history of international communist movement e.g. in the period when Lenin was trying to form his party there was also a “quagmire” between the revolutionary and opportunist current. Later (1921-1923) there was the two and a half International which had formally distanced itself from the opportunist Second International while later on it joined it creating the so-called “Labour and Socialist International”. Lenin wrote: “the gentlemen of the Two-and-a-Half International pose as revolutionaries; but in every serious situation they prove to be counter-revolutionaries because they shrink from the violent destruction of the old state machine; they have no faith in the forces of the working class[1]”.

The steps of the KKE in the elaboration of its strategy

It is well known that the communist movement had been facing various ideological deviations already before the overthrow of socialism in the USSR and the other socialist countries like the currents of Trotskyism, Maoism and “eurocommunism”. The CPSU and other communist and workers’ parties struggled against these ideological-political currents in one way or another. However this does not mean that these parties, amongst them the KKE, were free from weaknesses, mistakes, ideological shortcomings. The KKE is one of those CPs which after the overthrow of socialism showed great interest and studied the causes of the defeat. It examined them carefully, studying many party documents of that period in the framework of an arduous collective work.

At its 18^th Congress, after a rich inner-party discussion, the causes of the overthrow of socialism were embodied in a respective resolution of the Congress. According to the resolution causes are related to the economic basis of the socialist society, to mistakes made in this field (see the restoration of the instruments of “market” in socialist economy), as well as to the political superstructure, the role of the party and the Soviets (see the decisions of the 20^th and 22^nd congress of the CPSU). Our party has also focused its attention on serious problems that existed in the strategy of the international communist movement: the mistaken view on the stages towards socialism which has never been confirmed as well as the mistaken view on “ peaceful transition” that fostered many parliamentary illusions combined with the mistaken division of social democracy into a “left-wing” and a “right-wing” and the equally schematic and mistaken distinction of the bourgeois class into a “national” and a “comprador” section etc

It is necessary to carry out a substantial discussion

We would like to pose several serious issues in order to contribute to a substantial discussion in the communist movement.

First, our party argues that the revolution in our country and in all countries where capitalism has developed into its monopoly, imperialist stage (imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism) has a socialist character. This arises from the character of our era, the sharpening of and the necessity to resolve the basic contradiction between capital and labour, the indisputable maturation of the material conditions for socialism today.

It is self-evident that there is no scientific basis that allows the characterization of this analysis as sectarian and labels as revolutionary the analysis that sets the communist movement back many years, undermines the basic criteria of our worldview and supports the mistaken view “about stages” on the grounds that the strategy of a communist party is not determined by the solution of the basic contradiction of our era but by the correlation of forces.

This is a big problem. The rationale of stages objectively (despite any intentions) entails the search of pro-people solutions on the terrain of capitalism on the grounds that the “intermediate stage” will contribute to the maturation of the subjective factor and will operate as a bridge to socialism, something that in many cases is regarded as a result of parliamentary processes. This approach has not been confirmed anywhere and in any period. It is in contradiction with the lessons of the Great Socialist October Revolution in 1917. The worst thing is that the rationale of stages leads to the search of solutions for the management of the system e.g. of “left-progressive or patriotic governments” that will (objectively) manage the interests of the monopolies which will continue to have the ownership over the means of production and the political power.

This choice fosters illusions; it does not contribute to the preparation of the labour movement for fierce class confrontations; it condemns it to backwardness and makes it vulnerable to bourgeois ideology and politics, it entangles it in the web of parliamentary illusions.

Second, our party argues that the revolution in Greece will have a socialist character and thus it determines the line for the rallying of forces and struggle, placing emphasis on the regroupment of the labour movement and the reinforcement of the class orientation, on the strengthening of the class unity of the working class. At the same time, it works for the construction of the people’s alliance, i.e. the alliance between the working class, the poor farmers, the small self-employed, women and young people from the working class families. In the current conditions this alliance is expressed through the coordination of the struggle of the militant rallies: PAME in the working class, PASY in the farmers, PASEVE in the self-employed in urban centres, MAS in students, OGE in women.

The people’s alliance is a social alliance and has an anti-capitalist, antimonopoly orientation. It will be reinforced in the daily struggle concerning all the problems of the people, it will adapt and prepare itself so as to play the leading role in the conditions of the revolutionary situation (which has an objective character and all parties must prepare themselves for it), in the popular uprising for the overthrow of the capitalist barbarity.

In this direction, the KKE, the class oriented movement and the people’s alliance are in the forefront of the struggle in Greece. They mobilize hundreds of thousands of working people, forces that come in conflict with the forces of capital, the parties and its governments, the imperialist European Union. There are numerous examples of this struggle.  The positions that try to incriminate the revolutionary struggle with the slander about sectarianism, downplaying the vanguard, mass activity of the KKE and PAME and the other militant rallies that struggle for specific goals concerning all the problems of the people against the monopolies and capitalism are causing damage to the communist movement.

Obviously the struggle for socialism cannot be postponed for the indefinite future neither is it a matter of proclaiming it.

For example unemployment is a scourge and torments millions of working people. What should the communists say? Should they say that this problem can be solved in the framework of capitalism with a “left government”? This has no basis because the causes of the problem continue to exist. The solution of the problem of unemployment and generally the satisfaction of the contemporary needs of the working class and the popular strata requires the solution of the central problem of power, the socialization of the means of production, central planning. Thus the necessity and timeliness of socialism emerges from the very developments.

The development of capitalism has led to the maturation of the material preconditions for the construction of the new, socialist society. This is undeniable. It is also a fact that a revolutionary situation has not been formed and that the creation of class, political consciousness in the ranks of the working class is delayed and that the consequences of the counterrevolution are negative. Consequently, the maturation of the subjective factor is a very serious issue.

With what line and with what content can the maturation of the subjective factor be carried out? Can it be achieved on the basis of positions concerning left governmental solutions which objectively will manage the system, will be assimilated or will be politically bankrupted? Can it be achieved through vague references concerning “deep anti-monopoly transformations” on the terrain of capitalism?

What are these transformations? The nationalization of enterprises, the increased taxation on the profits of capital, the restriction of its “unaccountability”, as certain parties argue?

All these things have been tried and constitute different aspects of the system’s management. The basic problem will remain unsolved. And the basic problem is which social class will possess political power and the means of production.

The actual experience of “left governments” demonstrates that (left) management of capitalism even with the use of “revolutionary slogans” not only can not provide an answer regarding the paving of the way for socialism, but on the contrary functions as a means of assimilating the people’s consciousness into parliamentarianism, fosters false hope and delays the organization of the working class, its struggle in the direction of challenging the exploitative system, its preparation for the overthrow of capitalism.

Even a positive electoral result of a CP does not constitute a guarantee of a substantial change in the correlation of forces, when e.g. the popular forces are rallied around positions, slogans that express the political line of adopting a “humane” management of capitalism at a national level and does not pose the issue of overthrowing the system and withdrawing from the imperialist unions (e.g. EU-NATO)

The example of Brazil itself, which in this period is in the news due to the World Cup, is characteristic. A “left government” is managing capitalist power in Brazil. It is apparent according to the statistical data that the country’s richest 10% possesses 42.5% of the national income, 40 times more that that possessed by the poorest 10%, while 5% of the richest possess an income larger than that of the poorest 50%.  The monopolies are dominant in Brazil despite the “left” government.  The gross profits of ten big business groups in sales turnover amounts to 25% of the GDP. These groups prevail in industry, mining sector, in the trade of agricultural products as well as in trade and services in general. This means that monopolies prevail in all sectors of the economy of Brazil.

At the same time, the low salaries of the working people do not at all correspond to the Brazilian economy’s rate of development as the profits of the businessmen rank amongst the highest in the world. The social problems are on a long-term trajectory which will lead to even further exacerbation.

What does the KKE do in Greece?

The KKE is trying to contribute to the preparation of the subjective factor (Party, working class, alliances) for revolutionary conditions, for the realization of its strategic tasks.

For this reason its insists on the timeliness and necessity of socialism, not through phraseology “devoid of content”, but by popularizing issues regarding working class power, socialization, central planning with examples from important sectors of the economy. It insists on its position for the regroupment of the labour movement and the strengthening of its class orientation so that the labour movement does not limit itself to negotiating the conditions for the sale of labour power, but so that it becomes a force that will struggle for the overthrow of capitalist barbarity.

It works for the social alliance, the alliance of the working class with the poor farmers and urban self-employed, in order to strengthen the struggle in an anti-monopoly-anti-capitalist direction, focusing on the development path which has the people’s needs and not profits as its criterion.

The KKE’s struggle against the EU is not being waged from the standpoint of utopian solutions that a union of the monopolies can be transformed into a union of the peoples. Nor is it restricted to the confrontation against the “integration processes” of the imperialist union but poses the issue of withdrawal from the EU and NATO with working class-people’s power and socialization of the concentrated means of production.

This is also related to issues of sovereignty, independence. Our party approaches these issues from a class standpoint, from the standpoint of changing the class in power and the utilization of the productive potential of the country and this is connected to the goal of disengagement because otherwise the people’s sovereignty can not be safeguarded, the bourgeois class will remain dominant, dozens of ties of dependency will remain in place.

The fact that the KKE has ceased to separate social-democracy into two sections –“good” and ‘bad’- and does not divide Greece’s bourgeois class into a “national” section and a section “subservient to foreigners” does not mean that the KKE does not take into account and does not seriously study the differences that the political parties in Greece have, as well as the existing contradictions inside the bourgeois class, as well those amongst the strong capitalist countries and amongst the imperialist unions. On the contrary! What we have completely abandoned is the management of capitalism in any form, a management that is linked to the rationale of “left-progressive or patriotic governments”. We openly struggle so that the working class in our country and internationally does not fight “under a false flag”.

Someone could say: fine, these are the positions of the KKE but we have other conditions in our country.

What is the basic issue?

We live in the era of monopoly capitalism, imperialism, the characteristic feature to a greater of lesser extent of the economic base of the capitalist state is the monopolies, which dominate all or many sectors of the economy and own the means of production.

The bourgeois state is the “collective capitalist”, it is the state, the power of the monopolies.

The working class is the exploited class.

Consequently, whatever “national specificities” exist they do not change this situation, they do not change the basic rule, the necessity of the socialist revolution, of the construction of socialism, so that the exploitation of man by man is abolished and the conditions for a classless society are formed.

The KKE does not refer to “models” of revolution, or to a mechanistic transferring of the revolutionary experience. It assesses the difficulties, the complex character of the revolutionary process. But the basic issues are the following:

Are the laws of socialist revolution and construction valid or not?

Will the working class conquer power or not?

Will it struggle together with its allies, obviously in difficult conditions and in conflict with the counterrevolution, for the socialization of the means of production?

Will working class power attempt to implement central planning?

These are the problems which we are obliged to discuss, and we can say that aphorisms regarding sectarianism impede this discussion, conceal retreats and strategic impasses.

On the Crisis in the International Communist Movement

The KKE studied its history, the issues of socialism, the strategy of the international communist movement. It came to useful conclusions regarding the past, present and future and plays the leading role in the struggle of the working class in Greece. Its positions and experience, which are reflected in its party documents, public statements in international forums, are recognized by many CPs.

Other CPs followed other paths. Some of them have cut the “umbilical cord” with the October Revolution and abandoned our worldview (e.g. CP USA) and our symbols (PCF). Some are in coalition governments or seek to take part in such governments together with social-democrats inside the framework of capitalism. They laud the imperialist EU and fight to make it “better”. They support the imperialist interventions, for example, in Libya and in the Central African Republic (as parties from the ELP and GUE have done). These parties have crossed the “Rubicon”, in the sense of their acquiring bourgeois characteristics.

Other CPs did not take care over the last 25 years to focus on and study the developments, to draw conclusions. So we see that some of these parties repeat, for example, the positions of Gorbachev circa 1985 about “openness” and “democracy” to explain the causes for the overthrow of socialism in the USSR.

Nevertheless, when conclusions are not drawn, the corresponding changes to strategy and tactics on the basis of dialectical materialism are not made. These CPs continue to “dogmatically” support the strategy which most CPs had in the 1960s and 1970s and which has assimilated all the mistaken viewpoints that we mentioned above. And this leads them, despite the “revolutionary rhetoric” and expression of loyalty to Marxism-Leninism, to struggle for the improvement of capitalism through the rationale of its “transformation”, through various versions of “left-progressive or patriotic governments” on the terrain of capitalism.

The strengthening of opportunism is reflected in the ideological-political and organizational crisis of the international communist movement.

Of course, there are CPs that in very difficult conditions study the developments, follow the discussion in the international communist movement, take steps in the elaboration of their tactics and strategy in the struggle to strengthen the labour and communist movement in their countries and internationally.

On this basis, the unity of the communist movement can not be constructed with faulty material, with parties that, even if they keep the communist title, have abandoned Marxism-Leninism, use bourgeois arguments concerning the history of the communist movement.

The unity of the international communist movement can only based on the defense of Marxism-Leninism, on the struggle for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, for the socialist revolution.

Despite the differences of the historical period, the experience gained in confrontation against the opportunism of the 2^nd International is important for today because now an even greater concentration of forces and discipline is required for the struggle against opportunism, which is reinforced in various ways by the imperialist powers, like the EU. A glaring example is the “European Left Party” (ELP), which is funded by the EU. What unity can be built with parties that are in the leadership of the ELP and have made their choices? On what basis, with what goals?

What can be the goal, for example, of a Joint Declaration on the EU parliamentary elections with parties of the “hard core” of the ELP, this instrument that has been created in the EU’s framework for “European Parties” and works to castrate the revolutionary communist movement?

We leave to one side the fact these parties participated actively in the election campaign of SYRIZA for the EU parliamentary elections against the KKE, even if this is not insignificant, but we will focus on the essence, the choices that create space for the development of opportunist positions, fostering confusion amongst the workers and do not in any way help the unity of the international communist movement.

The unity of the international communist movement in order to be robust and stable can not be merely based on a minimum of issues, where there may exist a consensus. What is required is a deeper ideological-political unity of the CPs on the principles of Marxism-Leninism, proletarian internationalism, the elaboration of a modern revolutionary strategy.

Of course, the KKE has very responsibly dealt with forms that can contribute to the exchange of views, and the development of joint activity , like the International Meetings of the CPs and for this reason it made great efforts from the very first years of the counterrevolution up to today, efforts that have been appreciated by many CPs.

The KKE also seeks joint activities on various issues with CPs that have differences with it. In any case this is not something new. It even seeks the study of serious topics for the development of the strategy of the communist movement, the stable development of the joint struggle against the EU, the forces of capital in Europe, it participates in and supports the effort of the “INITIATIVE” of 29 Communist and Workers’ parties.

However the unity of the international communist movement goes beyond this and has enormous demands. Even more so, it must be clear that unity does not mean the imposition of positions via Joint Statements when there are intense differences on positions of strategic importance, as was attempted at the last International Meeting. This attempt met with the opposition of the KKE and other CPs, not because the KKE seeks the role of a “guide” or “leading centre”, these are not serious assessments and have no relationship with reality. The opposition of the KKE and other parties to the draft Joint Statement was due to the fact that there were positions contained within it in contradiction with the positions of the KKE and dozens of other CPs, as well as with our theory. And the respect for the political line of these CPs alone should have led to the option of reaching an understanding, as the KKE has done several times in the past in the Meetings in Athens, by not insisting on the issuing of a joint statement.

In the run up to the 16^th International Meeting of CPs in Guayaquil, Ecuador, it is necessary for the correct conclusions to be drawn so that there will not be a similar situation that is unpleasant for everyone. Because unity can not be imposed, it must be built!

International Relations Section of the CC