Category Archives: Eurocommunism

Anasintaxi (KKE: 1918-55): Some questions and answers about the current situation in Greece


1. Several dozen glorious general strikes and constant struggles of the masses in Greece against the austerity policies of ND and PASOK that plunged Greece into poverty and unemployment expressed the anger of the people and demanded a change in Greek society. How do you see and interpret the victory of SYRIZA in the elections?

By voting for SYRIZA, the majority of the Greek people rejected and condemned the cruel economic measures that were imposed, the neoliberal economic policy, in general, and the great-bourgeois parties of ND and PASOK that implemented these measures with the utmost servility. The victory of SYRIZA is also explained by the people’s resentment towards the fascist re-modeling of social life promoted by the government of the fascist scoundrel Samaras.

2. Tsipras and some political forces characterize SYRIZA as “radical left” that is going to somehow liberate the people of Greece from the economic misery. What is the class nature of SYRIZA and what program has the government of Tsipras promised the people to implement?

The revolutionary KKE, which never adopted the Khrushchevite revisionism, was eliminated by the brutal intervention of the soviet Khrushchevite revisionists in 1955-1956 and replaced by the Greek Khrushchevite revisionist party (“K”KE), a bourgeois party of a social-democratic type.

In 1968, “K”KE was split into two parties: the euro-communist part known as “K”KE (interior) and the Khrushchevite-Brezhnevite part known as “K”KE. SYRIZA originates from the first part and, consequently, is a social-democratic and reformist party guided by a right-opportunist general line and characterized by petty bourgeois class features.

In the sphere of social questions, SYRIZA is an anti-fascist party suffering from inconsistencies and contradictions as it is evident from the fact that it formed an alliance with the great-bourgeois nationalist party of ANEL.

3. Greece is a member of European Union, a member of NATO, and has implemented the neoliberal policies of the Western imperialist powers. Has Tsipras the will and determination to eliminate political, economical, and military dependency on the Western imperialist powers and to cut the hands of EU-ECB-IMF from the lives of Greek people?

Tsipras and the leading group of SYRIZA is neither willing nor determined to eliminate Greece’s political, economical and military dependence on imperialism. The only thing that he seems determined to do is to reduce the pressure coming from European Union and the European Central Bank regarding the implantation of extreme austerity programs. SYRIZA has made the strategic choice to support Greece’s membership in the European Union and the Eurozone.

4. Certainly, the victory of the people of Greece against the austerity measures of ND-PASOK governments is good news. How is the dialectical development of the situation after the elections? Will the conditions created by the Tsipras victory strengthen the class struggles of the Greek working masses?

During the first three weeks following the elections, the SYRIZA government has taken a series of actions in order to implement its program that has won the support of wide popular strata, an attitude that is unfortunately accompanied by certain illusions. We think that, up to a certain extent, SYRIZA’s victory creates favorable conditions for the strengthening of class struggles. Whether this possibility becomes a reality depends, of course, on many factors, the most important of which is the organization of the majority of the working masses in independent and united trade unions and the influence exerted on these, and the society in general, by the consistent left-wing, anti-imperialist and revolutionary communists.

5. The so-called Communist Party of Greece (KKE) participated in the European elections. Despite all its phrase-mongering demand about Greece leaving the Eurozone, how different are the politics of this reformist party from those of SYRIZA?

It is important to clarify that, despite its verbal attacks against EU and the Eurozone, “K”KE does not put forward (not even for the sake of demagogy) the question of Greece’s exit neither from the EU nor the Eurozone. This is also evident in the party’s program that was approved by its last congress. “K”KE considers Greece an imperialist(!) country and favors the view that “the term “national dependence” is not applicable in contemporary conditions” (1/2/2005). Furthermore, in relation to Euro, the leadership of “K”KE has stated: “A solution outside the euro and return to the drachma in the present circumstances would be catastrophic” (30/5/2011). Therefore, in essence, the policy of this reformist party is not different than that of SYRIZA.

6. The crises in Greece demand a vast mobilization of the popular sectors of the society and the development of a revolutionary alternative to capitalism. Could you tell us about the tactics adopted by KKE (1918-55) in the present situation in order to strengthen the struggles of the working class and to deepen the revolutionary demands of the protesters on the streets?

In order to contribute to the growth of the working class struggles and the rise of the revolutionary movement, the Movement for Reorganization of KKE (1918-1955) is striving, under very unfavorable conditions, to achieve the following:

A) The reorganization, re-birth of KKE (1918-1955) and the ideological-political-organizational unity of the Greek communists on basis of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism.

B) The formation of united, massive and truly independent trade unions whose aim will be the resistance to the extreme neo-liberal policy of austerity and the further development of the workers’ and people’s struggles combined with the struggle against fascism-Nazism.

C) The cooperation between the consistent left-wing, anti-imperialist and anti-fascist forces that will aim at the formation of a massive popular front that will fight against the dependence on imperialism, in general, and the exit of Greece from the EU, the Eurozone and NATO.

Αναρτήθηκε από Anasintaxi Organization στις


Meeting to Commemorate the 96th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution


The Workers’ Unity Trade Union (WUTU) organised a meeting to commemorate the 96th Anniversary of the Great Socialist Revolution on 10th November 2013 at Kapashera. This time the meeting was held at the place where the working class resides who worked in the various industrial centres of Gurgaon and the National Capital Region. The meeting was attended by representatives from Janpaksh, New Trade Union Initiative (NTUI), Marxist Communist Party of India (United) (MCPI-U), Campaign for Peace and Democracy (Manipur), Manipur Students’ Association Delhi, Nirman Mazdoor Shakti Sangathan, Pratidwani cultural group and concerned individuals.

At the beginning tributes were made to Comrades Lyallpuri and V.B. Cherian. The Internationale was played by Pratidwani.

Gautam Modi, NTUI: Comrade Gautam Modi congratulated WUTU for celebrating the Great October Socialist Revolution and said that WUTU is the one among the few organisations that has taken an initiative for this great occasion. He stated that the economic crisis which began in 2008 is still continuing. Though the objective situation is ripe for social transformation the Left movements and organisations are not yet either prepared to challenge the system nor are they organised to bring any kind of transformation. Since the disintegration of Soviet Union, the left has only taken part in protest demonstrations but could not convert this into struggles. It is essential to learn from October Revolution. He stressed the need for unity among different left and progressive organisation despite the differences. Regarding the conceptualisation on revolution, he said that Western scholars and including Russians had redefined the Russian Great October Revolution as a ‘coup’ and pre-mature, ill-timed actions led by Lenin. Other sections remained committed to October Revolution as the only way for social transformation. The disintegration of Soviet Union took place not because of the offensive from imperialism but because of internal crisis within the CPSU and USSR. In the 21st century, it is essential to learn from the critiques. He also stressed the need to change the working style in organisations.

Comrade Kuldeep Singh (MCPI-U): Comrade Kuldeep congratulated the WUTU for the meeting. He discussed in detail the context of the October Revolution. Lenin has learnt the lesson from the failure of the Paris Commune of 1871 which lasted only for 72 days and he applied it in both theory and practice by consolidating the Bolshevik Party and enriched the concept of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Lenin defended this concept form the attack of opportunists and revisionists. During the decades of 1960s and 1970s, with the emergence of “Euro-Communism,” the main attack was on the Dictatorship of Proletariat. Comrade Kuldeep distinguished the Dictatorship of Proletariat from Bourgeois Democracy as it is the democracy for all working masses, peasants and other oppressed masses which includes 95 percent of the total population. He stated that the deviation from the basic fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism in the guise of “three peacefuls” by Nikita Khrushchev after the death of J.V. Stalin led to its degeneration into a bourgeois republic. Regarding unity among various Left and progressive sections, he stressed that unity should be based on a common programme. The CPI (M) has completely transformed into a bourgeois party through its practice. The ongoing economic situation in our country is the consequence of the implementation of liberalism, privatisation and globalisation and the economic crisis which began in 2008 reflected the crisis of the global capitalist system and imperialism.

Dr. Rakesh Kumar Chamar (BSP): Dr. Rakesh discussed in detailed the day to day problems faced by local people particularly the depressed castes and he criticised the obstacles put by the bourgeois parties that is they even did not allow properly the implementation of the civil and constitutional rights which were laid down in the Constitution of India.

Comrade Abita (MSAD): She elaborated the consequences of the Indian occupation of Manipur on the day to day life of the people. She stressed the need to have collaboration of the workers’ movement in India and the national liberation struggle in Manipur.

Comrade Jaya Mehta (Economist): Comrade Jaya narrated her experiences of her recent visit to China. She stressed the importance of history and that it provides essential information regarding the success and failure of any revolution. Revolution is always made by the people and is led by the Party. The October Revolution is one among the great revolutions. She discussed the conditions of the working class in India, that is, out of 46 crores of people working in India, only 3 crores are in the organised sectors. In the last few years capitalism is in deep crisis and a new consciousness has to be developed based on socialism.

Comrade Satish (Maruti Union): He narrated the problems faced by workers in Maruti Company. Though 150 workers have been put behind bars, none of the unions or political parties seem to be concerned about their release.

Comrade P.P. Sawant: Comrade Sawant spoke of the illusion about justice in the minds of people. Though the Constitution of India declared itself as a Sovereign Democratic Secular Socialist Republic but since last 25 years, the terminology ‘socialism’ is completely missing in people’s minds. Regarding capital punishment, it has never been awarded to any rich capitalist or landlord but to the struggling people. He concluded that struggle is the only way for the success and legal battle is only part of larger struggle.

Comrade Shakir (WUTU): Comrade Shakir narrated his personal experience that he faced and how he tackled the police harassment. He also told the role played by the trade unions in sorting out the problems faced by the workers in day to day life. He stressed the need of organising the working class and building unity.

Mr. Vimal: Mr. Vimal narrated his personal experiences argued the workers must not compromise but engage in struggle.

Comrade Aurobindo Ghosh: He discussed the celebration of Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia and other parts of world. He tried to link various incidents in Tsarist Russia starting from the abolition of serfdom in 1861, the dress rehearsal of 1905, the bourgeois democratic revolution in February 1917 and leading it to the successful Great October Revolution under the leadership of V.I. Lenin. He enumerated the achievements during the Lenin-Stalin era in Soviet Union where women played a prominent role. Beside this he also acknowledged the role of Comrade Mao-Tse-Tung and the Chinese Revolution in continuation of October Revolution. Regarding India, he said that it would not be appropriate to say that objectively it is ripe for revolution but it is closer to it whereas the subjective conditions are completely lacking in our country.

Prof. Tripta Wahi: Comrade Tripta said that it was the first time in the history of mankind that state power was transformed to the exploited class, that is, workers and peasants. This revolution is continued for several years until the socio-economic system was transformed. It divided the whole world into two camps, that is, one section favoured the revolution and others opposed the cause. She highlighted the development in the field of medicine which was ahead of the Western countries.

In conclusion the film ‘Ten Days that Shook the World’ was screened.


Thoughts on Georges Soria’s Denunciation of “Trotskyism in the Service of Franco”

soria_trotskyismby Espresso Stalinist

Recently I was reading a PDF of the 1938 pamphlet Trotskyism in the Service of Franco: Facts and Documents on the Activities of the P.O.U.M. in Spain by Georges Soria. Soria was a representative in Spain of the French communist paper L’Humanité and also wrote for the International Press Correspondence of the Comintern. The material for the pamphlet was originally published as a series of articles reporting on the situation of the Spanish Civil War.

Forty years after its original publication, Soria is said to have denounced the work and its contents as a forgery.

The work has subsequently been dismissed as a fabrication for a number of years. It is now cited by Trotskyists as evidence of a “Stalinist” campaign to smear the P.O.U.M. as fascist agents. Jeffrey Meyers, a biographer of George Orwell, called it “a vicious book” and Orwell himself dedicated lengthy passages in his novel “Homage to Catalonia” to blaming the Communists for similar accusations, and for the loss in Spain as a whole. The pamphlet has become a tool to denounce the heroic role of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of Spain (PCE) in the Spanish Civil War as counterrevolutionary.

The copy of the full pamphlet in its 1938 form on the Marxists Internet Archive (MIA) comes with an editor’s note that cites the original author apparently claiming the work and its contents are a complete forgery:

“Forty years later, in a work about the Spanish civil war (Guerra y revolución en España 1936-1939, III, 78-79), Soria himself stated – without mentioning anything about his own role in disseminating the accusation  – that ‘the charge that the POUM leaders were ‘agents of the Gestapo and Franco’ was no more than a fabrication, because it was impossible to adduce the slightest evidence’ and the whole story was ‘an extension into the international arena of the methods that constituted the most somber aspect of what has since been called Stalinism’” (Marxists Internet Archive).

It’s worth noting MIA are not the first ones to use these quotes to “disprove” the Soria pamphlet. Many scholarly and non-scholarly books have used them as well.

As the MIA editor’s note shows, the original source for these quotes from Soria is the book “Guerra y revolución en España 1936-1939.” This source is not available to me. However, I did find another source that details the full unedited quotes by Soria which are being cited as proof his work is a forgery: the book “Spanish Civil War: Revolution and Counterrevolution” by Burnett Bolloten.

Within this source there is enough information to argue that the way the quotes from Soria are often presented is quite deceptive. Here I will present only what are actual quoted words from Soria, and omit the words and phrases MIA inserted between them. The first quote that is commonly used is that Soria said that:

“[…] the charge that the POUM leaders were ‘agents of the Gestapo and Franco’ was no more than a fabrication, because it was impossible to adduce the slightest evidence.”

The second quote, which MIA and others present as being about “the whole story,” (more on this later) meaning about the entire contents of Soria’s pamphlet, says:

“[…] an extension into the international arena of the methods that constituted the most somber aspect of what has since been called Stalinism.”

These passages in quotes are the only portions of the editor’s note that were actually said by Soria. Now I will present the full and unedited Soria quotes in their original context as cited in Bolloten’s book. All portions in brackets [ ] without the annotation “E.S.” appeared in brackets in the original Bolloten text. The first full quote reads as follows:

“Forty years later however, in an attempt to exculpate the Spanish Communists from responsibility for the death of Nin, he [Soria – E.S.] stated that ‘the accusations leveled against Nin in Spain in the form of the couplet: ‘Where is Nin? In Salamanca or Berlin?’ were ‘purely and simply…an extension into the international arena of the methods that constituted the most somber aspect of what has since been called Stalinism.’”

So Soria was not, in fact, talking about his pamphlet, but rather the story surrounding the disappearance of Andrés Nin, the founder of the P.O.U.M., where he was freed from prison by fascist agents. Soria then blames the NKVD for the death of Nin, which is what he dismissed as “an extension into the international arena of the methods that constituted the most somber aspect of what has since been called Stalinism.”

Bolloten even goes on to condemn Soria for his “attempt…to exonerate the PCE by shifting responsibility for the crusade against the P.O.U.M. and for the disappearance of Nin to the phenomenon of ‘Stalinism’” (507). So the Soria quote specifically speaks of the charges against Nin and one story of his disappearance.

The MIA editor’s note however, frames this quote as being about “the whole story,” implying that it’s about his original work and all charges of the P.O.U.M. acting as agents (either de-facto agents or actual spies) of Franco or Hitler:

“the whole story was ‘an extension…[Soria quote continues as above].”

As we can clearly see however, in this first quote Soria was not talking about his pamphlet or the “whole story,” but specifically about the alleged liberation of Andrés Nin from prison by fascist agents, which Soria recounts in the pamphlet, though he does not mention the involvement of the Gestapo but rather implies that fascist agents may have been involved.

Bolloten then cites the second Soria quote used by MIA in the same paragraph, which contains even greater pronounced differences with the MIA citation. The original says:

“On the one hand, the charge that the leaders of the POUM, among them Andrés Nin, were ‘agents of the Gestapo and Franco’ was no more than a fabrication, because it was impossible to adduce the slightest evidence. On the other hand, although the leaders of the POUM were neither agents of Franco nor agents of the Gestapo, it is true that their relentless struggle against the Popular Front played the game nolens volens of the Caudillo [General Franco]” (Bolloten 507).

So despite Soria claiming that the charges of the P.O.U.M. leadership, including Nin, being fascist spies was without evidence, he still blamed the P.O.U.M. for taking an ultra-left position and undermining the popular front in Spain, which still rendered de-facto service to the fascists. In other words, even if the Trotskyists and ultra-lefts in the P.O.U.M. were completely innocent of all charges and were not agents of the Gestapo or Franco, they “only” offered de-facto, and not de-jure, service to Franco.

The phrasing here says that even though he claims there is no evidence of the P.O.U.M. leadership being fascist agents and spies, Soria does not deny the fact that they rendered service to Franco, using the phrase, “nolens volens,” meaning “whether willing or unwilling.”

The editor’s note on MIA omits this second phrase for obvious reasons. There are a number of other interesting points regarding these full, unedited quotes that are worth pointing out.

In these quotes Soria does not denounce his original work – merely the specific charge that the P.O.U.M. leadership were spies of the Gestapo and Franco. He does say it was “impossible to adduce the slightest evidence,” which can be said to imply that the documents and sources he cites in the pamphlet are, at least in part, forgeries. However, this is not stated specifically. In fact, Soria does not mention his work at all! This is implicitly stated by the editor’s note on the MIA page, which states that Soria spoke “without mentioning anything about his own role in disseminating the accusation.” His “role,” of course, was the pamphlet!

To some extent MIA makes a valid point about Soria never mentioning his own “role” in the charges that he claims was a “fabrication…[without] the slightest evidence.” Assuming the work is a complete fabrication, Soria never claimed to have been coerced to write the pamphlet, and never mentions an outside party forcing him to do so. Therefore, even in the case that it is a complete forgery, until there is proof that Soria authored it under the influence of an outside force, the blame must be placed not on the Soviet Union, “Stalinism” or the PCE, but on Soria the author for allegedly forging the evidence in his articles in the first place, and allowing those articles to be published as a pamphlet.

It’s also worth repeating that though Soria expresses his belief that the charges against the “P.O.U.M. leadership” being fascist spies was false and without evidence, this does not mean everyone in the P.O.U.M. was innocent of such activities, and Soria says explicitly that the P.O.U.M.’s actions still helped Hitler and Franco, even if unwillingly. One must ask then: how does this in any way exonerate the P.O.U.M.?

Furthermore, why Soria should choose forty years after the publication of the original document, long after such a “confession” of forgery could have had any effect whatsoever on the anti-fascist war in Spain or its outcome is unclear, thought it must be pointed out that these words were said after Soria became sympathetic to the Eurocommunism of the PCF, and during the era of “de-Stalinization,” where the virtues of making slanderous statements and denunciations regarding the Stalin era were looked upon with favor both inside and outside the Soviet Union. The pace for this was set by the many utter falsehoods uttered by Khrushchev at the 20th Congress, and the decades of revisionism that followed.

CONCLUSION: Until there is more direct evidence that Georges Soria denounced his articles and the documents he cited in them as forgeries, there is no reason to “dismiss” them from consideration as evidence, and though he later claimed the charges against the P.O.U.M. leadership were baseless and there was no evidence for them, implying that at least part of the original work was false and/or mistaken, the conclusion that Soria admitted his work and all of its contents were complete forgeries cannot be supported by the existing facts.

Enver Hoxha on Salvador Allende: The Tragic Events in Chile – A Lesson for the Revolutionaries of the Whole World


Article published in the newspaper “Zeri i popullit”
October 2, 1973

In Chile the counter-revolutionary storm continues to rage against the working masses, the patriots and fighters of that country. The rightist forces which seized power as a result of the September 11 coup d’état have established a reign of terror which even the Hitlerites would have envied. People are being ruthlessly murdered and massacred everywhere, in the streets or at work, without trial, and on any pretext. The sports stadiums have been transformed into concentration camps. Progressive culture is being trampled underfoot. Marxist books are being burnt in bonfires in the squares, nazi style. While the democratic parties, trade-unions, and democratic organizations have been outlawed, mediaeval obscurantism is spreading over the whole country. The most fanatical, ultra-reactionary forces of darkness, the agents of American imperialism are strutting on the political stage. The democratic freedoms which the people had won through struggle and bloodshed were wiped out within one day.

The events in Chile affect not only the Chilean people, but all the revolutionary, progressive and peace-loving forces of the world, therefore, the revolutionaries and the working people not only of Chile, but also of other countries, ought to draw conclusions from these events. Of course, we are not talking of an analysis of purely national details and aspects, or of specific actions, shortcomings or mistakes of the Chilean revolution, which do not go beyond the internal framework of this revolution. We are speaking of those universal laws which no revolution can avoid and which every revolution is obliged to apply. The problem is to examine and assess in the light of the events in Chile which views proved correct and which distorted on the issues of the theory and practice of the revolution, to verify which theses are revolutionary and which are opportunist, and to determine which attitudes and actions assist the revolution and which assist the counter-revolution.

In the first place, it must be said that the period during which the Allende government remained in power is not a period which can easily be erased from the life of the Chilean people or from the whole history of Latin America. Interpreting the demands and wishes of the broadest popular masses, the Popular Unity government adopted a series of measures and carried out a number of reforms which were intended to strengthen the national freedom and independence of the country and the independent development of its .economy.

This government struck heavy blows at the local oligarchy and the American monopolies which held all the key positions and were making the law in the country. The inspirer of this progressive and anti-imperialist course was President Allende, one of the noblest figures to emerge from Latin America, an outstanding patriot and democratic fighter. Under his leadership the Chilean people struggled for the land reform, struggled for the nationalization of foreign companies, struggled for the democratization of the life of the country and for the freedom of Chile from American influence. Allende strongly supported the anti-imperialist liberation movements in Latin America and made his country an asylum for all the freedom fighters persecuted by the thugs and military juntas of Latin America. He gave the peoples’ liberation and anti-imperialist movements his unreserved support and was in full solidarity with the struggle of the Vietnamese, Cambodian, Palestinian and other peoples.

Could the big Chilean landowners, who saw their estates distributed to the poor peasants, forgive him for pursuing this course and this activity? Could the manufacturers of Santiago, who were expelled from their nationalized plants, tolerate this? Or the American companies which lost their power? It was certain that one day they would unite to overthrow him and regain their lost privileges. Here a natural question arises: Was Allende aware of the atmosphere which surrounded him, did he see the conspiracies being hatched up .against him? Of course, he did. Reaction operated openly. It assassinated cabinet ministers, functionaries of government parties and rank-and-file officials. It instigated and directed the organization of the counter-revolutionary strikes of the truck drivers; merchants, doctors and other petty-bourgeois strata. Finally it tried its strength in the military coup in June, which proved abortive. Several plans of the CIA for the overthrow of the lawful government were discovered.

These attacks by internal and external reaction would have been sufficient to sound the alarm and make Allende reflect. They would have been ample reason to implement the great law of every revolution, that counter-revolutionary violence must be opposed with revolutionary violence. But President Allende did nothing, made no move. Certainly, he cannot be accused of lack of ideals. He loved the cause for which he fought with all his heart and, to the end, he believed in the justice of that cause. He did not lack personal courage and was ready to make, and did in fact make, the supreme sacrifice. But his tragedy was that he believed he could convince the reactionary forces through reason to give up their activity and relinquish their past positions and privileges of their own good will.

In Chile it was believed that the relatively old-established democratic traditions, parliament, the legal activity of political parties, the existence of a free press, etc., were an insurmountable obstacle to any reactionary force which might attempt to seize power by violence. The reality, however, proved the opposite. The coup d’état of the rightist forces proved that the bourgeoisie will tolerate certain freedoms just so long as its essential interests are not affected, but when it sees that these interests are threatened, it is no longer concerned about ethics.

The revolutionary and progressive forces in Chile have suffered a defeat. This is very serious, but temporary. A constitutional government may be overthrown, thousands of people may be killed and scores of concentration camps set up, but the spirit of freedom, the people’s spirit of revolt, can be neither killed nor imprisoned. The people are resisting, and this proves that the working masses are not reconciled to defeat, that they are determined to draw conclusions from this and to advance on the revolutionary road. The liberation struggle against reaction and imperialism has its zigzags, its ups and downs. There is no doubt that the Chilean people who have given so many proofs of their lofty patriotism, who have displayed such love for freedom and justice, and who hate imperialism and reaction so profoundly, will know how to mobilize their forces and fight the enemies blow for blow to ensure the final victory for themselves.

For the Chilean people this is a grave, although temporary, misfortune, but for the modern revisionists it constitutes an all-round defeat, a complete overturning of their opportunist theories. All the revisionists, from those of Moscow to those of Italy, France and elsewhere, presented the “Chilean experience” as a concrete example which proved their “new theories” about the “peaceful road of the revolution”, the transition to socialism under the leadership of many parties, the moderation of the nature of imperialism, the dying out of the class struggle in the conditions of peaceful coexistence, etc. The revisionist press made great play with the “Chilean road” in order to advertise the opportunist theses of the 20th Congress of the CPSU and the reformist and utopian programs of the Togliattist type.

From the “Chilean experience” the revisionists expected not only confirmation of their “theories” about “the parliamentary road”, but also a “classical” example of the building of socialism under the leadership of a coalition of Marxist and bourgeois parties. They expected confirmation of their thesis that the transition to socialism is possible through parliamentary elections and without revolution, that socialism can be built, not only without smashing the old state apparatus of the bourgeoisie, but even with its aid, not only without establishing the revolutionary people’s power, but by negating it.

The theories of “peaceful coexistence” and the “peace.ful parliamentary road”, propounded by the Soviet revisionists, in the first place, and by the Italian and French revisionists and their other supporters, are responsible to a very considerable extent for the spread of pacifist illusions and opportunist stands towards the bourgeoisie and deviation from the revolutionary struggle.

All the programmatic documents which the Western revisionist parties have adopted since the 20th Congress of the CPSU, absolutize the “parliamentary road” of transition from capitalism to socialism, while the non-peaceful road is definitely excluded. In practice this has brought about that these parties have finally renounced the revolutionary struggle and strive for ordinary reforms of a narrow economic or administrative character. They have turned into bourgeois opposition parties and have offered to undertake the administration of the wealth of the bourgeoisie, just as the old social-democratic parties have done hitherto.

The Communist Party of Chile, which was one of the main forces of the Allende government, fervently adhered to the Khrushchevite theses of “peaceful transition”, both in theory and practice. Following instructions from Moscow, it claimed that the national bourgeoisie and imperialism had now been tamed, had become tolerant and reasonable, and that in the new class conditions, allegedly created by the present-day world development, they were no longer able to go over to counter-revolution.

However, as the case of Chile proved once again these and similar theories make the working masses irresolute and disorientated, weaken their revolutionary spirit, and keep them immobilized in the face of the threats of the bourgeoisie, paralyse their capacity and make it impossible for them to carry out decisive revolutionary actions against the counter-revolutionary plans and actions of the bourgeoisie.

As the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties had predicted and as time confirmed, the revisionists were against the revolution and aimed to turn the Soviet Union, as they did, into a capitalist country, from a base of the revolution into a base of counter-revolution. They worked for a very long time to sow confusion in the ranks of the revolutionaries and undermine the revolution. Everywhere and at every moment they have acted to extinguish the flames of revolutionary battles and national liberation struggles. Although for demagogical purposes they pretend to be for the revolution, with their views and activities the revisionists try to nip it in the bud or sabotage it when it bursts out.

Their deviation from Marxism-Leninism, their abandonment of the class interests of the proletariat, their betrayal of the cause of national liberation of the peoples, has led the revisionists to complete denial of the revolution. For them, the theory and practice of the revolution have been reduced to a few reformist demands, which can be met within the framework of the capitalist order, without affecting its basis. The revisionists try to prove that the dividing line between the revolution and reforms has been wiped out, that in today’s conditions of world development there is no longer any need for a revolutionary overthrow, because, they allege, the present technical-scientific revolution is doing away with the social class contradictions of bourgeois society, is allegedly a means for the integration of capitalism into socialism, a means to create a “new society” of prosperity for all. Thus; according to this confusing logic, one can no longer speak about exploiters and exploited, hence according to them, social revolution, the smashing of the bourgeois state machine and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat become unnecessary.

Under the mask of Leninism and its creative development the revisionists aimed at world domination, turning themselves into social-imperialists. They began with Khrushchevite “peaceful coexistence”, with “peaceful competition”, with “a world without weapons and without wars”, with the “parliamentary road”, etc., and ended up with the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union and the degeneration of socialism into social-imperialism.

Hence, they were against the revolution and the struggle of the peoples for liberation, and were against the communist parties which remained loyal to and defended Marxism-Leninism. In order to achieve their aims, especially the extinguishing of liberation struggles and revolutionary movements, the revisionists made the “peaceful road” the foundation of their “theory”. By revising the fundamental question of Marxism, such as the theory of revolution, and propagating their opportunist theses, they wanted to convince the workers to give up their revolutionary class struggle, to submit to the bourgeoisie and accept capitalist slavery.

On the other hand, “peaceful coexistence”, which the Soviet leaders proclaimed as the fundamental line of their foreign policy and which they wanted to impose on the whole world communist and national liberation movement, was a complete strategic plan to reach a broad agreement with imperialism, to strangle the revolutionary movements and to quell the liberation struggles, to preserve and extend their spheres of influence. The revisionists wanted to use, and did in fact use, this kind of “coexistence”, which was entirely suitable to imperialism and the bourgeoisie, as a great diversion to disarm the masses ideologically and politically, to blunt their revolutionary vigilance and immobilize them, to leave them defenceless in face of future attacks of the imperialists and social-imperialists.

The Soviet revisionists, as well as the other revisionists who managed to usurp state power, destroyed the party by stripping it of its revolutionary theory, rejected and trampled underfoot all the Leninist norms, and paved the way to liberalism and degeneration in the country. In spreading their anti-Marxist theses that “capitalism is being integrated into socialism”, that “non proletarian parties, too, can be the bearers of the ideals of socialism and leaders of the struggle for socialism”, that “even those countries where the national bourgeoisie is in power are moving towards socialism”, the revisionists not only aimed to deny the theory of the vanguard party of the working class, but also wanted to leave the working class without leadership in the face of the organized attacks of the bourgeoisie and reaction.

History has proved, and the events in Chile, where it was not yet a question of socialism but of a democratic regime, again made clear, that the establishment of socialism through the parliamentary road is utterly impossible. In the first place, it must be said that up till now it has never happened that the bourgeoisie has allowed the communists to win a majority in parliament and form their own government. Even in the occasional instance where the communists and their allies have managed to ensure a balance in their favour in parliament and enter the government; this has not led to any change in the bourgeois character of the parliament or the government, and their action has never gone so far as to smash the old state machine and establish a new one.

In the conditions when the bourgeoisie controls the bureaucratic-administrative apparatus, securing a “parliamentary majority” that would change the destiny of the country is not only impossible but also unreliable. The main parts of the bourgeois state machine are the political and economic power and the armed forces. As long as these forces remain intact, i.e., as long as they have not been dissolved and new forces created in their stead, as long as the old apparatus of the police, the secret intelligence services, etc.; is retained, there is no guarantee that a parliament or a democratic government will be able to last long; Not only the case of Chile, but many others have proved that the counter-revolutionary coups d’état have been carried out precisely by the armed forces commanded by the bourgeoisie.

The Khrushchevite revisionists have deliberately created great confusion concerning Lenin’s very clear and precise theses on the participation of communists in the bourgeois parliament and on the seizure of state power from the bourgeoisie. It is known that Lenin did not deny the participation of the communists in the bourgeois parliament at certain moments. But he considered this participation only as at tribune to defend the interests of the working class, to expose the bourgeoisie and its state power, to force the bourgeoisie to take some measure in favour of the working people. At the same time, however, Lenin warned that, while fighting to make use of parliament in the interests of the working class, one should guard against the creation of parliamentary illusions, the fraud of bourgeois parliamentarianism.

“Participation in the bourgeois parliament,” said Lenin, “is necessary for the party of the revolutionary proletariat to enlighten the masses, enlightenment which is achieved through elections and the struggle of the parties in the parliament. But to limit the class struggle to the struggle within the parliament, or to consider this struggle as the ultimate, the decisive form, to which all other forms of struggle are subordinate, means in fact to go over to the side of the bourgeoisie, against the proletariat.” V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 30, pp. 304-305 (Alb. ed.).

Criticizing the “parliamentary cretinism” of the representatives of the Second International, who turned their parties into electoral parties, Lenin clearly showed where parliamentarianism leads to in ideology, policy and practice. He stressed that,

“the proletarian state (the dictatorship of the proletariat) cannot replace it through its gradual withering away, but as a general rule, only through violent revolution.”  V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 25, p. 473 (Alb. ed.).

He stressed that

“the need to systematically educate the masses with this idea, and precisely this idea of violent revolution, is the basis of the entire doctrine of Marx and Engels.” Ibidem.

By still advocating the “parliamentary road”, the modern revisionists are simply blindly following the course of Kautsky and company. But the further they proceed on this course, the more they expose themselves and the more defeats they suffer. The whole history of the international communist and worker movement has proved that violent revolution, the smashing of the bourgeois state machine and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, constitute the universal law of proletarian revolution.

“The advance, that is, towards communism,” Lenin stressed, “runs through the dictatorship of the proletariat and it cannot follow any other course, because there is no other class and no other way to smash the resistance of the capitalist exploiters.” Ibidem, p. 548.

In the stage off imperialism, both at its commencement and now, too, the danger of the establishment of a fascist military dictatorship whenever the capitalist monopolies think that their interests are threatened always exists. Moreover, it has been proved, especially from the end of the Second World War to this day, that American imperialism, British imperialism and others have gone to the assistance of the bourgeoisie of various countries to eliminate those governments or to suppress those revolutionary forces which, in one way or another, offer even the slightest threat to the foundations of the capitalist system.

As long as imperialism exists, there still exists the basis and possibility for, and its unchangeable policy of, interference in the internal affairs of other countries, counter-revolutionary plots, the overthrow of lawful governments, the liquidation of democratic and progressive forces, and the strangling of the revolution.

It is American imperialism which props up the fascist regimes in Spain and Portugal, which incites the revival of German fascism and Japanese militarism, which supports the racist regimes of South Africa and Rhodesia and keeps up the discrimination against the black people in its own country. It is American imperialism that helps the reactionary regimes of South Korea and the Saigon and Pnom Penh puppets, which has instigated the Zionist aggression and helps Israel to maintain its occupation of the Arab territories. All the furious winds of anti-communism, national oppression and capitalist exploitation blow from the United States of America. Throughout Latin America, with some rare exceptions, American imperialism has established tyrannical fascist regimes, which mercilessly suppress and exploit the people. On that continent, all the weapons used against demonstrations, the weapons which kill the workers and peasants, are made in the United States and supplied by it.

The fascist military coup in Chile is not the deed of local reaction alone, but also of imperialism. For three years on end, during the whole time President Allende was in power, the Chilean rightist forces were incited, organized and encouraged in their counter-revolutionary activity by the United States. Chilean reaction and the American monopolies took revenge against President Allende for the progressive and anti-imperialist policy he followed. The undermining activity of the right-wing parties and all the reactionary forces, their acts of violence and terror were closely coordinated with the pressures exerted from outside by the American monopolies, with the economic blockade and the political struggle the American government waged against Chile. Behind the military junta was the CIA, the same criminal hand that had carried out so many coups d’état in Latin America, Indonesia, Iran, etc. The events in Chile once again revealed the true face of American imperialism. They proved once more that American imperialism remains a rabid enemy of all the .peoples, a savage enemy of justice and progress; of struggles for freedom and independence, of the revolution and socialism.

But the counter-revolution in Chile is a deed not only of the avowedly reactionary forces and the American imperialists. The Allende government was .also sabotaged and savagely opposed by the Christian-democratic and other factions of the bourgeoisie, so-called radical democratic forces similar to those together with which the communist parties of Italy and France claim that they will advance to socialism through reforms and the peaceful parliamentary road. The Frey party in, Chile does not bear only “intellectual responsibility”, as some claim, because it refused to collaborate with the Allende government, or because it was lacking in loyalty to the legal government. It bears responsibility also because it used all possible means .to sabotage the normal activity of the government, because it united with the forces of the Right to undermine the nationalized economy and to create confusion in the country, because it perpetrated a thousand and one acts of subversion. It fought to create that spiritual and political climate that was the prelude to the counter-revolution.

The Soviet revisionists, too, were implicated in the events in Chile. A thousand threads link the Soviet leaders in intrigues and plots with American imperialism. They did not intend or desire to help the Allende government when it was in power, because this would have brought them into conflict and damaged their cordial relations with American imperialism.

These stands of the Khrushchevite revisionists towards Chile and the theory of revolution had been confirmed before the Chilean events. They had been confirmed in the repeated tragic events in Iran: while the local reaction was killing and imprisoning hundreds and thousands of communists and progressive revolutionaries, the Soviet revisionists did not lift a finger, let alone severe diplomatic relations! These stands were confirmed in the shocking events in Indonesia, where about 500,000 communists and progressives were killed and massacred. Once again the Soviet revisionists did nothing, took no action and did not consider withdrawing their embassy from Djakarta. [1] These stands of the Soviet revisionists are not accidental. They testify to the existence of a secret collaboration with the American Imperialists to sabotage the revolutionary movements and to put down the peoples’ liberation struggles.

This stand sheds light on the demagogic character of the much publicized severance of diplomatic relations with Chile now.

Such is the reality. The fine words about their alleged solidarity with the Chilean people, like all their other demagogic catch-cries, are simply to deceive public opinion and to conceal their betrayal of the revolution and the peoples’ liberation movements.

The Soviet government severed diplomatic relations with Chile in order to exploit the opportunity to pose as a supporter of the victims of reaction, as if it is on the side of those who struggle for freedom and independence and the revisionists are defenders of progressive regimes. The Soviet revisionists help any progressive regime just so long as this assists their imperialist interests. But they go no further. Indeed, they are not ashamed to maintain regular diplomatic ties with such a discredited and bankrupt regime as that of Lon Nol, while they keep silent about such a great liberation struggle as that of the Cambodian people.

The events in Chile once again revealed all of the grave tragedy the peoples of Latin America are experiencing. Likewise, they brought to light again the shortcomings, limitations and weaknesses of the revolution on that continent, the very great difficulties and hardships it is undergoing. But they provide a lesson not only for the revolutionaries of Latin America. All the revolutionaries of the world, all those who fight for national and social liberation against imperialist interference and violence, for democracy and the progress of mankind should draw lessons from them. This includes the revolutionaries of the Soviet Union, who must rise against the revisionist rulers and overthrow them along with all their opportunist and anti-Leninist theories. Likewise, the revolutionaries of Italy, France and other developed capitalist countries ought to draw lessons from the Chilean events, and fight revisionism resolutely, rejecting the reactionary theories of the “peaceful parliamentary roads” which the Togliattists and the other revisionists propagate.

We believe that the events in Chile, the fascist attack of reaction against the democratic victories of the Chilean people, the brutal interference of American imperialism and its support for the military junta will encourage all the peoples of the world to be vigilant, to resolutely reject the demagogic slogans of the imperialists, revisionists and opportunists of every hue, and mobilize all their forces in courageous defence of their national freedom and independence, peace and security.

[1] The Soviet revisionists expelled the correspondent of “Harjan Rakjat”, organ of the CP of Indonesia, from the Soviet Union and welcomed the visit of Adam Malik, then foreign minister of the Indonesian fascist regime. They also continued to supply Soviet weapons to Indonesia.

“Against Modern Revisionism

Enver Hoxha on Earl Browder


“The first current which preceded the modern revisionism in power was Browderism. This current was born in the United States of America and took its name from the former general secretary of the Communist Party of the USA, Earl Browder.

In 1944, when the victory of the peoples over fascism was clearly on the horizon, Browder came out publicly with a program which was reformist from start to finish. He was the first herald of that line of ideological and political capitulation which American imperialism was to strive to impose on the communist parties and the revolutionary movement. Under the pretext of the alleged change in the historical conditions of the development of capitalism and the international situation, Browder proclaimed Marxism-Leninism “out-dated”, and called it a system of rigid dogmas and schemes. Browder advocated giving up the class struggle and called for class conciliation on a national and international scale. He thought that American capitalism was no longer reactionary, that it could cure the ills of bourgeois society, and could develop in democratic ways for the good of the working people.

He no longer saw socialism as an ideal, as an objective to be achieved. American imperialism with its strategy and policy had disappeared completely from his field of vision. For Browder, the big monopolies, the pillars of this imperialism, constituted a progressive force for the democratic, social and economic development of the country. Browder denied the class character of the capitalist state, and considered American society a unified and harmonious society, without social antagonisms, a society in which understanding and class co-operation prevailed. On the basis of these concepts Browder also denied the need for the existence of the revolutionary party of the working class. He became an initiator of the disbanding of the Communist Party of the United States of America in 1944.

“The Communists,” he wrote, “foresee that the practical political aims they hold will for a long time be in agreement on all essential points with the aims of a much larger body of non-Communists, and that, therefore, our political actions will be merged in such larger movements. The existence of a separate political party of Communists, therefore, no longer serves a practical purpose but can be, on the contrary, an obstacle to the larger unity. The Communists will, therefore, dissolve their separate political party, and find a new and different organizational form and name, corresponding more accurately to the tasks of the day and the political structure through which these tasks must be performed.”(E. Browder)

Browder took the Conference of allied powers which was held in Teheran in 1943 as his starting point and justification for the formulation of his bourgeois liquidatory theory and made a completely distorted and anti-Marxist analysis and interpretation of the results of this conference.

Browder presented the agreement of the anti-fascist allies to carry the war against Hitlerite Germany through to the end as the beginning of a new historical epoch, in which socialism and capitalism had found the way to co-operation within “one and the same world”, as he expressed it. Browder presented it as a duty to ensure that the spirit of co-operation and peaceful coexistence between the allied powers, which emerged from Teheran, should be applied not only between the Soviet socialist state and those capitalist states, but also within the capitalist country in relations between antagonistic classes. “Class differences and political groups now no longer have any importance,” said Browder. He considered the achievement of “national unity”, without incidents and in an atmosphere of class peace, the sole objective which the communists, should set themselves, and he understood this national unity as a bloc uniting the groups of finance capital, the organizations of monopolists, the Republican and Democratic parties, and the communists and trade union movements, all of which, without exception, he considered “democratic and patriotic” forces. For the sake of this unity Browder declared that communists must be ready to sacrifice even their convictions, their ideology and special interests, that the American communists have applied this rule to themselves first of all. “The political aims which we hold with the majority of the Americans,” says he, “we will attempt to advance through the existing party structure of our country, which in the main is that of the peculiarly American ‘two-party’ system”. (E.Browder)

Confused by the relatively peaceful development of American capitalism following the well-known reforms which the American President Roosevelt undertook in order to emerge from the economic crisis at the beginning of the 30’s, as well as by the rapid growth of production and employment during the war period, Browder drew the conclusion that American capitalism had allegedly been rejuvenated, that now it would develop without crises and would ensure the raising of the general well-being, etc.

He considered the American economic system to be a system capable of resolving all the contradictions and problems of society and fulfilling all the demands of the masses. He equated communism with Americanism and declared that “communism is the Americanism of the 20th century”. According to Browder, all the developed capitalist countries could resolve every conflict and go gradually to socialism by using bourgeois democracy, for which American democracy had to be the model. Therefore, Browder considered that the task of American communists was to ensure the normal functioning of the capitalist regime, and declared openly that they were ready to co-operate to ensure the efficient functioning of the capitalist regime in the post-war period, in order to “ensure the greatest possible lightening of obligations which are a burden on the people”. According to him, this lightening of burdens would be done by the “reasonable” American capitalists, to whom the communists must extend the hand of friendship.

In conformity with his ultra-rightist concepts and submitting to the pressure of the bourgeoisie, after the disbanding of the Communist Party. in May 1944, Browder announced the creation, in place of the party, of a cultural and illuminist association called the “Communist Political Association”, justifying this with the argument that the American tradition allegedly demanded the existence of only two parties. This association, organized as a network of clubs, was to engage mainly in “activity of political education on a national, regional and local plane”.

The Constitution of this association says: “The Communist Political Association is a nonparty organization of Americans which, basing itself upon the working class, carries forward the tradition of Washington, Jefferson Paine, Jackson and Lincoln under the changed conditions of modem industrial society,” that this association “…upholds the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights, and tile achievements of American democracy against all the enemies of popular liberties.” (The Path to Paece, Progress and prosperity, New York 1944 pp.47-48) Browder wiped out all the objectives of the communist movement. In the program of the Association there is, no mention of Marxism-Leninism, the hegemony of the proletariat, the class struggle, the revolution or socialism. National, unity, social peace, defence of the bourgeois Constitution and the increase of the capitalist production became its only objectives.

In this way, Browder went over from open revision of the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism and the revolutionary strategy and tactics to the organizational liquidation of the communist movement in the United States of America. Although the party was re-formed at its 13th Congress in June 1945, and the opportunist line of Browder was formally rejected, his influence was never eliminated in the Commumst Party of the USA. Later, especially after 1956, the ideas, of Browder flourished again and John Hayes in an article entitled “The Time for Change Has Come”, (Political Affairs, October 1956) once again demanded in the spirit of Browderism the turning of the Communist Party of the USA into a cultural and propaganda association. And in fact, that is what the Communist Party of the USA is today an organization in which the revisionism of Browder combined with that of Khrushchev prevails.

With his revisionist concepts about the revolution and socialism, Browder gave world capitalism direct aid. According to Browder, socialism arises only from some great cataclysm, from some catastrophe, and not as an inevitable result of historical development. “We do not desire any catastrophe for America, even if such a thing would lead to socialism,”. he said. While presenting the prospect of the triumph of socialism as very remote, he advocated class collaboration in. American society and throughout the world. According to him, the only alternative was that of-‘ development by evolution, through reforms and with the aid of the United States of America.

According to Browder, the United States of America, which possessed colossal economic power and great scientific-technical potential, had to. assist the peoples of the world, including the Soviet Union, for their “development”. This “aid”, said Browder, would help America maintain high rates of production after the war, ensure work for all, and preserve the national unity for many years. To this end, Browder advised the magnates of Washington that they should set up a “series of giant industrial development corporations for the various devastated and undeveloped regions of the world, Europe, Africa, Asia, Latin America.,”(The Path to Peace, Progress and Prosperity, new York 1944, pp.21) “If we can face realities without flinching, and revive in modern terms the grand tradition of Jefferson, Paine, and Lincoln, then America can face the world united, assuming a leading part… in the salvation of mankind…” (E.Browder, Theheran, Our Path in war and Peace, New York 1944 p.128) In this way, Browder became the spokesman and propagandist of the grand strategy of American imperialism, and its expansionist neo-colonialist theories and plans.

Browderism directly assisted the -Marshall Plan- through which the United States of America aimed to establish its economic hegemony in the different war-devastated countries of Europe, Asia, Africa, etc.

Browder advocated that the ,countries of the world, and especially the countries of people’s democracy and the Soviet Union, ought to soften their Marxist-Leninist policy and accept the -“altruistic” aid of the United States of America, which, according to him, has a colossal economy and huge surpluses which can and should serve all peoples(!).

Browder tried to present his anti-Marxist and counterrevolutionary views as the general line of the international communist movement. Under the pretext of the creative development of Marxism and the struggle against dogmatism, he, like all the earlier revisionists, tried to argue that the new epoch after the Second World War required a communist movement which would reexamine its former ideological convictions and relinquish its old “formulas and prejudices”, which, according to him, “cannot help us at all to find our way in the new world”. This was a call for rejection of the principles of Marxism-Lemnism.

Browder’s views encountered the opposition of the communist parties of several countries, as well as of the revolutionary American communists themselves. Browderism was exposed relatively quickly as undisguised revisionism, as an openly liquidationist current, as a direct ideological agency of American imperialism.

Browderism did great damage to the communist and workers’ movement of the United States of America and some Latin-American countries. Upsets and splits occurred in some of the old communist parties of Latin America, and these had their source in the activity of opportunist elements who, weary of the revolutionary struggle, grasped at any means with which American imperialism provided them to quell the revolts of the peoples and the revolution, and to spread decay in the parties, which were working for the education and preparation of the peoples for revolution.

ln Europe, Browderism did not have the success it had in South America, although this seed of American imperialism was not left unabsorbed by those disguised anti-Marxist and anti-Leninist reformist elements who were awaiting or preparing the suitable moments, to deviate openly from the scientific Marxist-Leninist ideology.

Although in its own time Browderism did. not manage to become a revisionist current with broad international proportions, the other modern revisionists who came later revived its views and made them their own. These views, in various forms, remain the basis of the political and ideological platforms of the Chinese and Yugoslav revisionists, as well as of the Eurocommunist parties of Western Europe.”

Enver Hoxha, “Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism”

Enver Hoxha on the Transition in Spain and the PCE


After the death of Franco, King Juan Carlos came to power in Spain. He is the representative of the Spanish big bourgeoisie, which, seeing that during its long rule the fascist regime had plunged the country into a grave crisis, came to the conclusion that Spain could no longer be governed as in Franco’s time. Therefore certain changes had to be made in the form of government and Franco’s discredited Falange could no longer be kept in power. After a series of changes of heads of government, the people most trusted by the new king, the continuers of the reformed Francoism, took power.

Demonstrations and strikes broke out in Spain as never before. Through them the people demanded changes, naturally, not this “change” that took place, but deep-going and radical changes. The strikes, demonstrations and clashes there did not cease and are still going on. The masses are demanding freedoms and rights, and the different nationalities autonomy. In this situation, in order to mislead the masses in revolt, the government of Juan Carlos also legalized the revisionist party of Ibarruri-Carrillo. The heads of this party have become obedient flunkies of the Spanish monarchic regime, have turned into scabs to hold back the great revolutionary drive which has built up in the existing situation and, in conjunction with the bourgeoisie, to suppress all the elements with revolutionary ideas from the Spanish War and admirers of the Republic.

— Enver Hoxha, “Imperialism and the Revolution”

Enver Hoxha on Eurocommunism

socialismenver_hoxha_pass_to_the_offensive (30)

“In a situation when the European bourgeoisie is in great difficulties because of the grave economic and political crisis, when the revolt of the masses against the consequences of this crisis and capitalist oppression and exploitation is mounting to ever higher levels, nothing could serve it better than the anti-Marxist views and anti-worker activity of the Eurocommunists. Nothing could give greater assistance to the strategy of imperialism for the suppression of the revolution, the undermining of liberation struggles and domination of the world than the revisionist, pacifist, capitulationist, collaborationist trends, including Eurocommunism.”

Enver Hoxha, “Eurocommunism is Anti-communism”

CPUSA Job Interview

Prelude to Genocide: How Capitalism Caused the Balkan Wars

The U.S. claims that the Balkan people are gripped by irrational hatreds. And that the U.S. (the self-appointed “cop of the world”) and their allies have no choice but to step in, bomb, impose, threaten and dictate. The imperialists insist that the people of the Balkans need outside forces to dominate them–to save them from themselves! It is an imperialist self-justification–based on crudely turning history upside down. It blames the people for the suffering imposed on them by capitalism.

The Balkan region of southeastern Europe is a complex “jaguar skin” of different nationalities. The Catholic northern part of Yugoslavia–including Slovenia and Croatia–had longstanding links to Austria and Germany to the north. The southern part of Yugoslavia had long historical ties eastward toward Greece, Turkey and the northern Slavic countries of Bulgaria and Russia.

History has created pockets of national hatreds here–the same way some towns or counties in the U.S. are known as white racist towns. But the hatreds of these rural backwaters did not need to infect and polarize the whole country. But over the last ten years, waves of war have washed over the Balkans, subjecting the masses of people to “ethnic cleansing” by death squads and now large-scale bombing by the U.S. and its NATO allies.

The origins of this warfare are not ancient–they are quite modern. These wars are caused by the capitalist rivalries of various ruling classes of the republics of former Yugoslavia–coldly egged on, armed, and backed by imperialist powers, like Germany, the U.S. and Russia.

This article looks at the history of Yugoslavia since its founding after World War 2. It shows that capitalist development caused tensions and inequalities within Yugoslavia and how reactionary war emerged from the power grabs of various bourgeois nationalist forces there.

Behind the Civil War

The nationalities living in the Balkan mountain area can unite–and they proved it. These peoples created a powerful multinational guerrilla movement during World War 2 to defeat the German Nazis and Italian fascists who occupied the region for three years. The peoples of Yugoslavia pinned down many divisions of Nazi troops–and ultimately freed themselves, guns in hand, in a communist-led resistance war. Modern Yugoslavia was build out of that unity–bringing together six nations and several other significant nationalities.

There was no reason why a new, progressive, multinational unity could not have been built. The key would have been uniting on the basis of the interests of the masses of people–along the road of socialism and proletarian internationalism.

But there was, unfortunately, never any real socialist transformation in Yugoslavia. The leaders of the new Yugoslavia, headed by Josef Broz Tito, betrayed the revolution and took the capitalist road–straight into the embrace of U.S. imperialism. This laid the seeds for the wars of today.

The Titoites broke the Yugoslav economy into small independent units. In agriculture, early experiments in collectivization were reversed–by 1957 virtually all the farms were in private hands. Nationalized industry was “privatized.” Individual factories were officially operating under “workers’ self-management.” But the policy was set by directors, and the real control was exercised by the market mechanism of capitalism. Without socialist planning, profit decided where investments flowed, what was produced, and who got to work. In reality “worker self-management” meant that wages were tied to factory profits–they were a form of piecework. Factories, industries and whole regions were competing with each other and profit was in command. And, more importantly, the proletariat did not have state power. It was impossible for them to revolutionize society.

The World’s First Experience with “Capitalist Roaders in Power”

By 1948 Tito was sharply criticized by the world communist movement, then led by Joseph Stalin. Meanwhile Tito was praised and supported by the imperialists–who were waging all kinds of warfare against revolutionary and socialist forces around the world. Tito claimed that he would walk a “non-aligned” path between East and West. But in fact, his Yugoslavia quickly became dependent on the imperialists–politically, economically and militarily–tied to the world capitalist market while he huddled under the U.S. “nuclear umbrella.”

For the first time in history a victorious armed movement led by supposed communists had come to power, but it set up a capitalist society. This was the first experience with “revisionism in power”–meaning a capitalist ruling class that claimed to be leading a socialist society.

The development of Yugoslavia was closely studied by revolutionaries like Mao Tsetung. In 1955, Khrushchev, a top leader in the Soviet Union, visited Yugoslavia and praised Tito. Within a year, Khrushchev himself had seized complete power in the Soviet Union and took it too down the capitalist road.

In 1963 under Mao’s leadership, the Chinese Communist Party sent an open letter called–Is Yugoslavia a Socialist Country?–to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. In that polemic, Mao’s forces wrote: “The restoration of capitalism in Yugoslavia will make all Marxist-Leninists see better and enable people to realize more keenly the necessity and urgency of combating modern revisionism. So long as imperialism exists, there is apparently no ground for saying that the danger of the restoration of capitalism in the socialist countries has been eliminated.”

Capitalist Roots of National Antagonisms

Under the weight of growing debt to the West, the Titoites carried out new “reforms” in 1965. They moved to make their currency convertible to Western currencies–so that investments could more easily flow in and profits could more easily flow out. After 1968, foreign capitalists could invest directly in the private sector. Yugoslavia became the first revisionist country to set up a stock market. These innovations of the capitalist road are now being carried out in the rest of Eastern Europe.

Yugoslav proletarians were sent off as cheap labor for northern Europe–they basically became an “export commodity.” By 1971, over a million Yugoslavs were immigrant workers, over half of them in West Germany.

According to World Bank statistics, the wealthiest 5 percent of Yugoslav households earned 25 percent of the national income in the 1970s, while the poorest 20 percent of the population earned less than 7 percent. This was one of the most extreme income gaps in Europe–in fact, according to the World Bank, even India’s income distribution gap was not as big!

The northern nations of Yugoslavia–Slovenia and Croatia–were more highly developed industrially and agriculturally. The three southern national areas–Macedonia, Montenegro, and the Albanian region of Kosovo–were far more undeveloped and poor. Serbia, the largest national grouping, is in between North and South and is also a relatively poor area. These divisions within Yugoslavia got even more acute because of the capitalist development pursued by Yugoslavia. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer. Over decades, this created a powerful basis for antagonism between the nationalities of the country and for the growth of reactionary nationalism.

Investment flows where the profits are greatest. The industrial northern nations developed rapidly after 1945, while the poorer southern republics stagnated. When the 1990s started, per capita production in Slovenia was three times as high as it was in poorer regions like Macedonia. By 1970 the per capita income of the average Slovene was over six times that of the average Kosovar. Kosovo lives in Third World conditions–comparable to Bolivia or Morocco–while in Slovenia the standard of living is closer to that of neighboring Austria.

The villages in the poorer peasant regions of the south emptied. People went north for lousy jobs and barrack-like living conditions as “guest workers”–within the supposedly “equal” Yugoslav federation. These “guest workers” make up 15 to 20 percent of the Slovenian workforce and are treated like dirt.

The old phony-communist system of Yugoslavia was based on state capitalism and a complex system of balancing bourgeois national interests. Inevitably, that old federation became strained. Bourgeois forces leading each republic tried to shift wealth toward “their” nations.

Inequality Gives Rise to Political, then Military Conflict

In the 1980s the conflicts intensified because of classic “IMF crisis.” Yugoslavia sank deeply into debt to the International Monetary Fund and other international imperialist lenders–to the tune of $1.8 billion. The lenders demanded that capitalist Yugoslavia take “austerity” measures to pay back the debt, and this inflamed the conflict in the country.

The masses themselves were not especially gripped by national hatreds–certainly not at the beginning. Large parts of the population had intermarried. In urban areas people moved away from religion–which had been a form through which national hostilities had been expressed. Many people no longer identified with one or another nationality–but simply considered themselves “Yugoslavs.” Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia was famous for this kind of multicultural fusion. Today, the masses of people there still fondly remember the days when people lived and worked together peacefully.

Meanwhile, under the surface, the inequalities between Yugoslavia’s regions and the rival ambitions of the different national capitalist forces within Yugoslavia created conditions for an eruption.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, and imperialist power shifted in Europe, it tore old Yugoslavia apart. Warring bourgeois camps sprang out–claiming to protect the survival of different national groups–while they pursued their own interests and sought to divide the people along national lines.

After Tito died, an extremely reactionary movement won the leadership of the state-capitalist forces in Serbia. Led by Slobodan Milosevic, this political current insisted that the time had come for the Serbian nation (meaning the Serbian national bourgeoisie operating within the larger Yugoslavian state) to grab for itself–and impose its will by force. Milosevic, like most ruling class figures in the former Yugoslavia, was a former revisionist–meaning that he had been part of the ruling Yugoslavian party, the “League of Communists,” which was a phony communist, state capitalist government institution.

Some forces argue that the U.S. is attacking Serbia to enforce economic privatization and the elimination of “socialist” remnants in Yugoslavian society. These analyses are completely off the mark.

There is no socialism in Yugoslavia today and there never was. Yugoslavia has been controlled by running dogs of the U.S. and enemies of real communism for its whole history. Yugoslavia built its economy along capitalist and free-market lines over 40 years ago. And today, there is certainly nothing socialist at all about the economy of the Serb-dominated Yugoslav federation or the politics of local capitalist-nationalist reactionaries like Slobodan Milosevic. Milosevic is the top representative of the Serbian capitalist ruling class which is attempting a reactionary power grab in the region–and has collided with some larger interests of NATO’s imperialist/capitalists –especially those ruling Germany, Britain and the U.S.

In 1989 Milosevic made Kosovo a symbol and a starting point of this regional power grab. As he came to power within the Yugoslavian federation he revoked the autonomy that Kosovo had exercised within Serbia. He started to systematically impose a Serbian domination on the Albanian majority of Kosovo. He brutally suppressed a powerful strike among the Kosovo miners, expelled Albanians from the universities, imposed Serbian police and troops on the province–and generally made it clear that his government intended to drive Albanians from Kosovo. There were repeated incidents of police murder, as the cops acted like an occupying force.

All this signaled that military force was being applied to turn Yugoslavia into a Greater Serbia. It greatly accelerated the development of separatist sentiments among the ruling classes of the other nationalities (like Croatia, Slovenia and Macedonia). The masses of people feared that they would soon be targeted for their nationality.

The capitalist forces controlling Slovenia and Croatia thought they could get a better deal outside of the Yugoslavian federation. They were encouraged, backed, and armed by newly reunited German imperialism. Once Croatia and Slovenia seceded, the Yugoslavian federation started to unravel. The Federal army command, dominated by Serbian officers, emerged more and more as the real power holding the Yugoslav federation together. Warfare erupted in waves.

First came war between the Serbian-dominated Yugoslavian army and the governments of Croatia and Slovenia that declared independence from Yugoslavia. That war ended with independence for both Croatia and Slovenia.

Then, a three-sided war erupted within the most multinational republic, Bosnia, as Serbian and Croatian militias fought to drive other nationalities out, and annex parts of Bosnia to their republics.

Both the Croatian and Serbian nationalists developed death-squad like forces that carried out “ethnic cleansing”–murderous terror campaigns designed to force the masses of people to flee multinational areas and group with their own nationality.

With major German and U.S. military backing, the Croatian forces were able to fight the Serbian/Yugoslavian army to a stalemate–inside and outside Bosnia. This led to the 1995 Dayton Accords where the U.S. and Milosevic together imposed a defacto partitioning of Bosnia between Croatian and Serbian forces–and cut the very ground out from underneath the Bosnian Muslims (who the U.S. claimed to be helping).

The third wave of fighting has now erupted in Kosovo–as Milosevic moved to defeat the armed Albanian forces resisting his reactionary nationalist moves. The campaigns of suppressing Albanians accelerated. Serbian death squad forces, like “Arkan’s Tigers,” made their appearance with high-level government support. This fighting is particularly troublesome for U.S. interests because it threatens to destabilize Macedonia–and carried a great risk of disrupting U.S./NATO alliances in this region.

This bitter series of Balkan wars is a living example both of how capitalism leads to the domination of one nation over another and how imperialism inflames conflicts among the people into reactionary war.

Reactionary Polarizations

The bitter events of years of civil war and ethnic cleansing have deepened painful chasms between the peoples of various nationalities that can only be overcome through tremendous struggle and revolutionary leadership. Progressive sentiments, opposition to ethnic cleansing and desires for unity are often heard among the masses of people throughout this whole region–along with considerable hatred of reactionary nationalist forces leading the governments of Serbia and Croatia. However, despite that, the political and military initiative has remained in the hands of those bourgeois nationalist forces.

Within these intense and often many-sided conflicts–there are forces who have been fighting for just causes. In particular, the Bosnian Muslims and the Albanians of Kosovo have been fighting in self-defense, and have raised just demands for self-determination and independence to guarantee the security of persecuted peoples.

The whole situation in the Balkans cries out for an armed, determined multinational force with a internationalist vision of solidarity between the peoples and a program for defeating reactionaries and building a new society. Unfortunately, there is no Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party in the Balkans today to lead such an armed struggle. One will have to be built. There is no shortcut out of this situation. Support for imperialist intervention and occupation will only deepen the divisions, confusions and sufferings among the people–and it will only strengthen the position of imperialism in the world as a whole to impose its interests on oppressed people.

Many millions all over the world are watching the bitter sufferings of the Balkan people. And there is a way for them to help create the conditions for something better. It is to firmly and forcefully oppose the interventions and intrigues of the U.S. and NATO. It would be a great contribution to the future of the Balkan peoples to make it as difficult as possible for the Great Powers to bomb and occupy, infiltrate local movements and governments, build up their favorite local reactionaries, and impose their interests over the bones of the people.


Communist League: The Influence Of Rosa Luxemburg on the CPG

Appendix to Revisionism In Germany: to 1922 by the Communist League; January 1977.

The dominant theoretical influence on the Communist Party of Germany in its early years was that of Polish-born Rosa Luxemburg, who moved to Germany in 1897:

“Rosa Luxemburg has left behind deep traces in the German and Polish Communist movement. One can say without exaggeration that for a considerable number of years.. both parties grew up under the influence of her ideas and guidance”.

(D. Manuilsky: “The Bolshevisation of the Parties;” in: “Communist International”, No. 10; 1925; p. 59).

“All the -new leaders fully subscribed, (to) the guiding lines of policy laid down by Rosa Luxemburg in the foundation document of the, CPG and subsequent policy statements in ‘Rote Fahe’. On nearly all subjects her word was law . . . . And even after the personal element of tribute had gradually died away,, her work was still the fount of all orthodoxy in Germany”.

(J.P. Nettl: “Rosa Luxemburg”, Volume 2; London; 1966; P. 787-8).

In her work “The Accumulation of Capital“, published in 1913, Rosa Luxemburg put forward the view that a capitalist society could solve the problem of capital accumulation only by expanding into pre-capitalist economies.. and that when these areas had been absorbed, capitalism would break down“:

“The day-to-day history of capital becomes a string of political and social disasters and convulsions, and under these conditions, punctuated by persistent economic catastrophes or crisis, accumulation can go on no longer . . . .
Capitalism . . . strives to become universal.. and, indeed,, on account of this, it must break down”.

(R. Luxemburg: “The Accumulation of Capital”; London; 1951; p. 467).

Lenin’s marginal notes to “The Accumlation of Capital”, are full of comments such as “False!” and “Nonsense!”, and he described her main thesis as a “fundamental error”. (V.I. Lenin: Notes on R. Luxemburg’s Book; “The Accumulation of Capital”, in: “Leniniski Sbornik”, Volume 22; Moscow; 1933; p.343-6).

In accordance with this thesis, Rosa Luxemburg saw no revolutionary potential in the peoples of the colonial-type countries and denied the possibility of genuine wars of national liberation under imperialism. In her pamphlet “The Crisis of German Social Democracy, written in 1915 under the pseudonym of “Junius” and published in 1916, she declares:

“In the present imperialistic milieu there can be no wars of national self-defence”.

(R. Luxemburg: “The Crisis of German Social-Democracy”; in: “Rosa Luxemburg Speaks”; New York; 1970; p. 305).

Commenting on her opposition to the Polish national-liberation movement, against the domination of tsarist Russia, Lenin said:

“In her anxiety not to ‘assist’ the nationalistic bourgeoisie of Poland, Rosa Luxemburg by her denial of the right of secession in the programme of the Russian Marxists, is, in fact assisting the Great Russian Black Hundreds (i.e., fascist-type organisations of the Russian landed aristocracy – Ed)”.

(V.I. Lenin: “On the Right of Nations to Self-Determination”; in: “Selected Works”, Volume 4; London; 1943; p. 266).

After the socialist revolution in Russia in November 1917 Rosa Luxemburg condemned the national policy of the Bolsheviks as “counter-revolutionary”:

“The Bolsheviks are in part responsible for the fact that the military defeat was transformed into the collapse and a breakdown of Russia. Moreover, the Bolsheviks themselves have to a great extent, sharpened the objective difficulties of this situation by a slogan which they placed in the foreground of their policies: the so-called right of self-determination of peoples, or something which was really implicit in this slogan – the disintegration of Russia.
One after another, these ‘nations’ used the freshly-granted freedom to ally themselves with German imperialism against Revolution as its mortal enemy and, under German protection, to carry the banner of counter-revolution into Russia itself. . .
The Bolsheviks.. by their hollow nationalistic phraseology Concerning the ‘right of self-determination to the point of separation’ . . . . . . . did nothing but confuse the masses in all the border countries by their slogan and delivered them up to the demagogy of the bourgeois classes. By this nationalistic demand they brought on the disintegration of Russia itself, pressed into the enemy’s hand the knife which it was to thrust into the heart of the Russian Revolution. .
The Bolsheviks provided the ideology which masked this campaign of counter-revolution; they strengthened the position of the bourgeoisie and weakened that of the proletariat”.

(R. Luxemburg, “The Russian Revolution”, in: Rosa Luxemburg Speaks”.; New York; 1970; p. 378, 380, 382).

Similarly, Rosa Luxemburg failed to see, even in a country where the bourgeois-democratic revolution, had not been carried through, the revolutionary potential of the peasantry, regarding it as, in the long run, a reactionary force — a view which became a cornerstone of the Trotskyite theory of “permanent revolution“:

“Rosa Luxemburg declared that Lenin . . . overlooked the . . . fact that it (i.e., the peasantry Ed.) would certainly, and probably very soon.. go over again, into the camp of reaction”.

(P. Frohlich; “Rosa Luxemburg: Her Life and Work”; London; 1940; p. 113).

On the basis of this view, after the socialist revolution in Russia in November 1917 she condemned the Bolshevik policy of redistributing the land among the peasantry as “counter-revolutionary“:

“The slogan launched by the Bolsheviks, immediate seizure and distribution of the land by the peasants. .. piles up insurmountable obstacles to the socialist transformation of agrarian relations . . . .
Now after the ‘seizure’ . . . . . there is an enormous, newly developed and powerful mass of owning peasants who will defend their newly won property with tooth and nail against every socialist attack of the future socialisation of agrarian economy. . . . has now become a question of opposition and struggle between the urban proletariat and the mass of the peasantry. . . .
Now that the Russian peasant has seized the land with his own fist, he does not even dream of ‘defending Russia and the revolution to which he owes the land.
The Leninist agrarian reform has created a new and powerful layer of popular enemies of socialism in the countryside, enemies whose resistance will be much more dangerous and stubborn than that of the noble large landowners”.

(R.Luxemburg: “The Russian Revolution in: “Rosa Luxemburg Speaks”; New York; 1970; p. 376, 377, 378).

Rosa Luxemburg saw the mass strike with economic aims as the decisive form of the revolutionary struggle of the working class:

“The mass strike is merely the form of the revolutionary struggle. . . . Strike action is the living pulse-beat of the revolution and at the same time its most powerful driving wheel. The mass strike. . . is . . . the method of motion of the proletarian mass, the phenomenal form of the proletarian struggle, in the revolution. . . . In this general picture the purely political demonstration strike plays quite a subordinate role. . . The demonstration strikes which, in contradistinction to the fighting strikes, exhibit the greatest mass of party discipline, conscious direction and political thought, and therefore must appear as the highest and most mature form of the mass strike, play in reality the greatest part.. in. the beginnings of the movement. . . .
The pedantic representation in which the pure political mass strike is logically derived from the strike as the ripest and highest stage. . . is shown to be absolutely false . . . .
The movement on the whole does not proceed from the . . .. economic to the political struggle. . . Every great political mass action, after it has attained its political highest point, breaks up into a mass of economic strikes. And that applies not only to each of the great mass strikes, but also to the revolution as a whole”.

(R.Luxemburg: “The Mass Strike and the Trade Unions”, in: “Rosa Luxemburg Speaks”; New York; 1970; p. 182, 183, 184, 185).

But the economic strike, which to Rosa Luxemburg, was the decisive form of the revolutionary struggle of the working class, is predominantly spontaneous in character:

“The mass strike cannot be called at will, even when the decision to do so may come from the highest committee of the strongest social-democratic party. . . . .
The element of spontaneity plays a great part in all Russian mass strikes without exception. .
The element of spontaneity plays such a predominant part because revolutions do not allow anyone to play the schoolmaster with them”.

(R. Luxemburg: ibid, p. 187, 188).

On the basis of the view of the predominantly spontaneous character of “the decisive form of the revolutionary struggle of the working class, Rosa Luxemburg opposed as “dangerous” and “Blanquist” Lenin’s concept of the necessity for a disciplined vanguard party based on firm democratic centralism. In her article “Organisational Questions of Social Democracy“, first published in 1904 as a review of Lenin’s “What Is to be Done?” she writes:

“Lenin’s centralism . . . is a mechanical transposition of the organisational principles of Blanquism into the mass movement of the socialist working class . . . His conception of socialist organisation is quite mechanistic.. . . The tendency is for the directing organs of the socialist party to play a conservative role.. . . Granting, as.. Lenin wants, such, absolute powers of a negative character to the top organ of the party, we strengthen, to a dangerous extent, the conservatism inherent in such an organ. . . The ultra-centralism asked by Lenin is full of the sterile spirit of the overseer. It is not a positive and creative spirit. Lenin’s concern is not so much to make the activity of the party more fruitful as to control the party — to narrow the movement rather than to develop it, to bind rather than to unify it. In the present situation such an experiment would be doubly dangerous to Russian social democracy. . . We can conceive of no greater danger to the Russian party than, Lenin’s plan of organisation. Nothing will more surely enslave a young labour movement to an intellectual elite hungry for power than this bureaucratic straitjacket, which will immobilise the movement and turn it into an automaton manipulated by a Central Committee“.

(R. Luxemburg: “Organisational Questions of Social Democracy”, in: Rosa Luxemburg Speaks-“; New York; 1970; p. 118, 119, 121, 122., 126-7).

Rosa Luxemburg shared with Leon Trotsky anti-Leninist views not only on the question of the role of the peasantry and on the question of the organisation of the party of the working class, but also on the question of the possibility of building socialism in a single country:

“Of course, even with the. greatest heroism the proletariat of one single country cannot loosen this noose”.

(R. Luxemburg: “The Old Mole”, in: ‘Selected Political Writings”; London; 1972; p. 227).

“The awkward position that the Bolsheviks are in today, however, is together with most of their mistakes, a consequence of the basic insolubility of the problem posed to them by the international, above all the German, proletariat. To carry out the dictatorship of the proletariat and the socialist revolution in a single country surrounded by reactionary imperialist rule and in the fury of the bloodiest world war in human history — that is squaring the circle. Any socialisst , party would have to fail in this task and perish.”

(R. Luxemburg: “The Russian. Tragedy”, in’: Ibid.; p.241-2).

And like Trotsky, she strived during the years before the First World War to bring about a reunification of the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks i.e., to obliterate the dividing line between Marxism-Leninism and’ revisionism:

“The other plan was proposed by Rosa Luxemburg. . . . according to that plan. . a ‘unity conference’ (Einingungskenferenz) was proposed “in order to restore a united party”. . . . This last plan . . . . was only an attempt on the part of Rosa Luxemburg to smuggle in the ‘restoration’ of the sadly notorious ‘Tyszko circle’ (‘Tyszko’ was the pseudonym of Leo Jogiches — Ed.)

(V.I. Lenin: “A Good Resolution And a Bad Speech”, in: “Selected Works”, Volume 4; London’; 1943; p. 209).

Holding these views, Rosa Luxemburg could not but be hostile to the Soviet regime established in Russia under the leadership of the Bolsheviks in November 1917.

“Freedom of the press, the rights of association and assembly … have been outlawed for all opponents of the Soviet regime. . . . Without a free and untrammeled press, without the unlimited right of association and assemblages the rule of the broad mass of the people is entirely unthinkable…. Freedom only for the supporters of the government . . . .is no freedom at all. . . .
Lenin is completely mistaken in the means he employs. Decree, dictatorial force of the factory overseer, draconic penalties, rule by terror – all these things are but palliatives. It is rule by terror which demoralises. . . .
With the repression of political life in the land as a whole, life in the Soviets must also become more and more crippled. Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which the bureaucracy remains as the active element. Public life gradually falls asleep, a few dozen party leaders of inexhaustible energy and boundless experience direct and rule . . . .
At bottom, then, a clique affair — a dictatorship to be sure; not the dictatorship of the proletariat, however, but only the dictatorship of a handful of politicians. . . . Such conditions must inevitably cause a brutalisation of public life.”

(R.Luxemburg: “The Russian Revolution”, in: “Rosa Luxemburg Speaks”; New York; 1970; p. 389, 391).

Following Stalin‘s statement that many of the serious political mistakes committed by the Communist Party of Germany were the result of Social-Democratic survivals which must be eliminated (September 1924), the “Theses on the Bolshevisation of the Parties of the Comintern“, adopted by the Fifth Plenum of the ECCI March/April 1925, drew special attention to the harmfulness of Luxemburgism:

“The genuine assimilation of Leninism and its practical application in the construction of Communist parties throughout the world is impossible without taking into consideration the errors of very prominent Marxists who strove to apply Marxism to the conditions of a new epoch, without being wholly, successful in so doing.
Among these errors must be included those of Rose Luxemburg. The nearer these political leaders are to Leninism, the more dangerous are those of their views which, being erroneous, do not coincide with Leninism”.

(Theses on the Bolshevisation of the Parties, of the Comintern, 5th. Plenum ECCI, in: “International Press Correspondence”; Volume 5, No. 47; June 4th., 1925; p.616).

The theses described the most important errors of Luxemburgism as follows:

“a). The non-Bolshevik method of presenting the question of ‘spontaneity’, ‘consciousness’, ‘organisation’, and the ‘mass’ . . which frequently hampered the revolutionary development of the class struggle, prevented proper understanding of the role of the Party in the revolution;
b) the under-estimation of the technical side of preparing for revolt hampered, and in some cases even now hamper, the proper presentation of the question of ‘organising’ revolution’;
c) the error in the question of the attitude towards the peasantry;
d) equally serious were the errors committed by Rosa Luxemburg in the national question. The repudiation of the slogan of self-determination, (to support the formation of independent states) on the ground that under imperialism it is ‘impossible’ to solve the national question, led in fact to a sort of nihilism on the national question which extremely hampered Communist work in a number of countries;
e) The propagation of the party-political character of trade unions. . . was a great mistake which evidenced the failure to understand the role of the trade unions as organs embracing all the workers. This mistake seriously hampered, and still hampers, the proper approach of the vanguard to the working class as a whole;
f) while paying just tribute to the greatness of Rosa Luxemburg, one of the founders of the Communist International, the Comintern believes that it will be acting in the spirit of Rosa Luxemburg herself if it will now help the Parties of the Comintern to draw the lessons from the errors made by this great revolutionary.
Without overcoming the errors of Luxemburgism, genuine Bolshevisation is impossible”.

(Ibid.; p.616).

In November 1931, Stalin’s letter to the journal “Proletarian Revolution” was published, under the title of “Some Questions concerning the History of Bolshevism”. This reiterated in stronger terms the criticism made of the theory and practice of Luxemburgism:

“Organisational and ideological weakness was a characteristic feature of the Left Social-Democrats not only in the period prior to the war. As is well known, the Lefts retained this negative feature in the post-war period as well. Everyone knows the appraisal of the German Left Social-Democrats given by Lenin in his famous article ‘On Junius’s (i.e., Rosa Luxemburg’s –Ed.) Pamphlet’, written in October 1916, in which Lenin, criticising a number of very serious political mistakes committed by the Left Social-Democrats in Germany, speaks of ‘the weakness of ALL German Lefts, who are entangled on all sides in the vile net of Kautskyan hypocrisy, pedantry, ‘friendship’ for the opportunists; in which he says that ‘Junius has not yet yet freed herself completely from the ‘environment’ of the German, even Left Social-Democrats, who are afraid of a split, are afraid to express revolutionary slogans to the full’. . . The Lefts in Germany. . . time and again wavered between Bolshevism and Menshevism. . . .
In 1903 . . . . the Left Social-Democrats in Germany, Parvus and Rosa Luxemburg, came out against the Bolsheviks. They accused the Bolsheviks of ultra-centralist and Blanquist tendencies. Subsequently, these vulgar and philistine epithets were caught up by the Mensheviks and spread far and wide. In 1905. . . . Parvus and Rosa Luxemburg . . . invented the utopian and semi-Menshevik scheme of permanent revolution (a distorted representation of the Marxian scheme of revolution) which was permeated through and through with the Menshevik repudiation of the policy of alliance between the working class and the peasantry, and opposed this scheme to the Bolshevik scheme of the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. Subsequently, this semi-Menshevik scheme of permanent revolution was caught up by Trotsky and transformed into a weapon of struggle against Leninism. The Left Social-Democrats in the West developed the semi-Menshevik theory of imperialism, rejected the principle of self-determination of nations in its Marxian sense (including secession and formation of independent states), rejected the theses that the liberation movement in the colonies and oppressed was of great revolutionary importance, rejected the theses that a united front between the proletarian revolution and the movement for national emancipation was possible, and opposed this semi-Menshevik hodge-podge, which was nothing but an underestimation of the national and colonial question, to the Marxian scheme of the Bolsheviks. It is well known that this semi-Menshevik hodge-podge was subsequently caught up by Trotsky who used it as a weapon in the struggle against Leninism. Such were the universally known mistakes committed by the Left Social-Democrats in Germany.
I need not speak . . . . of the mistakes they committed in appraising the policy of the Bolsheviks in the period of the October Revolution. . . .
Of course. . . they also have great and important revolutionary deeds to their credit. . . .
But this does not cannot remove the fact that the Left Social-Democrats in Germany did commit a number of very serious political and theoretical mistakes; that they had not yet rid themselves of their Menshevik burden”.

(J.V. Stalin: ”Some Questions concerning the History of Bolshevism”, in: “Leninism”; London; 1924; p. 390, 391-2, 393-4).

The letter was attacked immediately by the open revisionists, such as Leon Trotsky:

“There is included in it a vile and bare-faced calumny about Rosa Luxemburg. This great revolutionist is ‘enrolled by Stalin into the camp of centrism! . . . Stalin should proceed with caution before expending his vicious mediocrity when the matter touches figures of such stature as Rosa Luxemburg”.

(L. Trotsky: “Hands off Rosa Luxemburg”, in: R. Luxemburg: “Rosa Luxemburg. Speaks”, New York; 1970; p. 441, 446).

When the concealed revisionists threw off their mask in 1956, they too strongly denounced Stalin’s Letter:

“Through it, sectarian views., especially on Social-Democracy and its left wing, were fostered in the CPG”.

(“‘Geschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung: Chronik”, Volume 2; Berlin; 1966; p. 278)

Trotsky, in the article mentioned above, was also indignant that in his letter Stalin had “credited” Rosa Luxemburg and Parvus (i.e., Alexander Helphand) with having invented the theory of “permanent revolution”, and pointed out that in “On the Problems of Leninism”, published in 1926, Stalin had “credited” Parvus and Trotsky with having first put the theory forward. Stalin clarified his position in January 1932:

“It was not Trotsky but Rosa Luxemburg and Parvus who invented the theory of ‘permanent’ revolution. It was not Rosa Luxemburg but Parvus and Trotsky who in 1905 advanced the theory of ‘permanent’ revolution and actively fought for it against Lenin. Subsequently Rosa Luxemburg, too, began to fight actively against the Leninist plan of revolution. But that was after 1905″.

(J.V. Stalin: Reply to Olekhnovich and Aristov, in: “Works”, Volume 13; Moscow; 1955; p.133, 134)

On January 8th., 1932, the organ of the. Communist Party of Germany “Rote Fahne” carried an article endorsing Stalin’s letter and declaring that the influence of Luxemburgism had been “the greatest obstacle” to the development of a Marxist-Leninist Party in Germany:

“The Communist Party of Germany welcomes Comrade Stalin’s letter as a document which calls upon the German Communists to wage a fierce struggle against all social-democratic influences within the revolutionary movement, against the remnants of Centrism and Luxemburgism within the Party. . . . The failure on the part of the German Left Radicals in regard to the question of a complete break with opportunism and Centrism had an adverse effect upon the whole course of the Spartacus League during the war. Its after-effects were to be seen in the vacillations and the actions of the various liquidatory and oppositionist tendencies in the CP of Germany and rendered difficult a clear fulfilment of the role of the Party. Thus this failure of the German Lefts became the greatest obstacle to the development and victory of the revolutionary movement of the German proletariat”.

(“Comrade Stalin’s Letter and the CP of Germany”, in: “International Press Correspondence”, Volume 12, No, 4; January 28th., 1932; p. 73).

An article written by Fritz Heckert and published later in January 1932 to commemorate the anniversary of Rosa Luxemburg’s murder, followed the same lines:

“Under the ideological leadership of Rosa Luxemburg there arose the fundamentally false idea regarding the nature of imperialism, which led to the theory of the mechanical collapse of capitalism. From this again there followed the theory of the spontaneity of the masses, who would wrest themselves from the errors and crimes of the social-democratic leaders in order to rally round the revolutionary leadership. This also was the reason why no steps were taken to found an independent revolutionary party. It was not recognised that the party can be only the advance-guard of the proletariat, its most progressive, energetic and clearest part. These false ideas are connected with other errors of equally great importance.. such as the failure to recognise the role of revolutionary violence and the errors regarding the national and the peasant questions.
It is thanks to the after-effects of the social-democratic trends in the Communist Party of Germany that such big mistakes were committed in 1921 in the March action and in 1923 in the October movement,, and that the Party was long prevented from developing into a real Bolshevist Party owing to the actions of a large number of renegades in its ranks. The eradication of all false ideas is indispensably necessary necessary for every Bolshevik Party. Only recently.. Comrade Stalin again urgently called attention to this . . . .
It would be a profanation of the two great Dead if we sought to vie with the renegades in conserving their errors”.

(F. Heckert: “January 15, 1919”, in: “International Press Correspondence”, Volume 12, No. 2; January 14th., 1932; p. 29).


PCMLE: Enver Hoxha – Builder and Defender of Marxism

From En Marcha, the newspaper of the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador (PCMLE).

Enver Hoxha and the Party of Labor of Albania, unmasked and confronted the different types of revisionists, fought against the Yugoslavists, confronted the Titoists and fought the Maoists.

Enver was born in Albanian Gjirokastra the October 16, 1908 and died in Tirana on April 11, 1985, his studies were done at Paris (France), University of Montpellier, a place where he came into contact with Communist circles . Collaborated with the communist newspaper L’Humanité exposing the Albanian monarchy. In 1936 he returned to Albania and began working as a teacher. He fought in the Spanish Civil War, as part of the International Brigades. Thereafter participated in the Albanian opposition to the king Zog I and the Italian invasion of April 7, 1939.

Hoxha communist group joined the “Labor” and actively involved in the formation of the National Liberation Front, which was his first political commissar. After the Italian occupation of the country in April 1939, c. Enver was fired from his job and Korça communist organization sent him to the capital, Tirana, which soon became an important center of the communist movement and the anti-fascist resistance. On November 8, 1941 Communist Party was founded as a product of the merger of several communist groups in this process played an important role Enver, which made him one of the references to 1943, during World War II, was elected leader of the PTA.

On November 29, 1944 Albania was liberated from all the invaders and installed a new government led by Labour Party of Albania, having Hoxha as the main party leader. This was the result of a hard struggle of workers and Albanian peoples, “the Albanian revolution triumphed through armed uprising and the creation of people’s armed forces. In the first phase laid the foundation through core guerrilla detachments and regular battalions, detachments of volunteers, self-defense areas, moral and political preparation of the masses for the armed uprising, in a second phase, the fight became general uprising popular, organized the National Liberation Army, the third phase, the general popular uprising led to the expulsion of the occupants and the complete liberation of the country, the destruction of the organization and the reactionary armed forces as an instrument of the invaders and complete destruction of the state apparatus of the occupiers and traitors. ”

After conquering the power and drive out the fascists in their territory, major changes were made as to nationalize mines, banks and foreign companies and established state control over production and labor, while multiplied consumer cooperatives . In August 1945 began land reform, distributing among poor peasants and laborers nearly all arable land were owned by landlords.

After the victory in World War II solidified a provisional government and Enver Hoxha became Prime Minister. On January 11, 1946 was proclaimed by the Constituent Assembly’s Republic of Albania, abolish the monarchy and beginning the construction of socialism in the country.

On several occasions the class enemy attempted to regain power and to divert the revolutionary path through which marched the Albanian people in that mission Josep Tito, leader of Yugoslav revisionism, played a nefarious role. But discipline and conviction of the PTA confronted and exposed the enemy’s strategy and the July 1, 1948 Albania broke off diplomatic relations with Yugoslavia. During the following months the c. Enver Hoxha and the PTA faced all currents and elements for the government to Titoites Albanian.

With Enver Albania at the head of five-year planning was encouraged to develop production in this country, but at the same time it promoted the building of socialism and got great transformations, the bourgeoisie and imperialism sought every way to hit the block degenerate socialist and revolutionary achievements. Thus, in countries where the communists and the working classes down their guard and kept the revolutionary vigilance and discipline, revisionism and opportunism were able to take over the leadership of communist parties and socialist states.

In that scenario and Enver Hoxha of Albania Workers Party unmasked and confronted the different ranges of revisionists, fought against the thesis of the XX Congress of the CPSU in which the principles were felt Juschovistas, faced the Titoist and fought the thesis of the three worlds of Maoism.

Enver Hoxha’s so leaves an important legacy as a fighter communist, a fighter who faced the reaction and opportunism in all its facets, which exposed the revisionism and fearlessly defended Marxism-Leninism.


Long live the fortieth anniversary of Socialist Albania, N.11 political magazine, pg. 76


More photos from PAME-“K”KE stance on October 20

Members of "K"KE-PAME in front of police forces uphold the Greek Parliament using sticks and helmets

Members of "K"KE-PAME attacked protesters during the second day of the 48-hour general strike (October 19-20)

None of these photos were published in "Rizospastis". newspaper of "K"KE


The reformist leaders of the “K” KE-PAME: Impact force of the capital upheld the reactionary bourgeois parliament

Surprised thousands of workers striking protesters and anti-fascists of various political orientations and members-but fans of “K” KE-PAME who were in Constitution Square the second (20 Ochtovri) day of 48-hour strike they first saw the reformist leaders to assume stewardship the reactionary bourgeois parliament and ensuring the “Order and Security”, ie the imposition of bourgeois legality, with the “excuse” the safeguarding of “own” ie that the concentration of PAME, apparently replacing the police and the civilian Army who uses the bourgeoisie when the police are inefficient and unable to fulfill this “pious” work ie to defend the reactionary bourgeois regime.

The surprise, of course, thousands of demonstrators strikers are entirely justified, because this phenomenon is completely new to the action of right-wing opportunists antistalinikon-antizachariadikon leaders and such a shameful act anepanastatiki happens for the first time in the history of the local political process chroustsofikis social democracy: to take the reformists leaders of the “K” KE-PAME’s role and work of the Police ie guard the bourgeois parliament and ensure that civil legitimacy and the full replacement. But this ignominious fate of the reformist leaders was not a random and isolated incident, nor was an error estimate: instead it was expected and inevitable, is not new, and perhaps the last link in a long chain in the course of constant betrayal of social democratic Khrushchev “K” JV starting from the mid-50 when protosygkrotithike (March 56), after the violent revolutionary Communist Party from the brutal intervention of Khrushchev, Brezhnev, etc. therein, from the Soviet treacherous chroustsofiki group as an outset antistaliniko antizachariadiko-urban, social democratic type party.

For antistalinikous-antizachariadikous opportunist leaders of the new reformist “K” KE (56) are the words of Lenin’s old social democracy, “the factors of the labor movement who belong to the opportunist trend are the best defenders of the bourgeoisie, despite themselves bourgeoisie “(Lenin), and” there just is the starting point and the current counterrevolutionary role of the reformist leaders of the “K” KE-PAME open civil defense system by challenging employees to uphold the reactionary bourgeois parliament, evolution surprise for thousands of workers and protesters has the background to – default but from the chroustsofiki direction – two important stages, before it reaches the end-Ochtovri of 2011, which is essential to fully brief report that will highlight the best and convincingly Today’s revolutionary energy and their inevitable outcome, over a period of sharpening class struggle.

1.Dekaetia of 80: the disgraceful stewardship of the Embassy of the U.S. imperialists with the Police

When in November 1980, the state University, the Government of monarcho-fascists party SW (Prime Minister G. Rallis) ordered the police to attack protesters who tried to “break” the fascist prohibition on the road to the American Embassy, ​​with the result that many hundreds of injured protesters and murder of a young laborer Stamatia Kanellopoulos and Cypriot student James Koumi, leader of bourgeois party PASOK and Papandreou that the social democratic “K” KE X. Florakis instead condemn the government of murderers denounced the demonstrators and attributed to these bloody episodes caused by the fascist police attack, with instructions of Prime Minister G. Rallis (son of worthy collaborators father Ioannis Rallis occupation Prime Minister appointed from the German conquerors).

In another time, in 1981, won the elections PASOK bourgeois, and the then new Prime Minister has allowed for the first time the continuation of trajectories in the American Embassy (as in 1981 banned the marches by the government of New Democracy party monarcho-fascists in the U.S. Embassy, ​​allowed only as the Constitution).

From the very first time the Embassy of U.S. imperialists not only patrolling the police and members-fans of “K” KE was always lined up in front in chains and behind them stood fully armed riot police, a practice that continued for decades. Many of the members-fans (unfortunately employees-naive victim of a treacherous policy) of the “K” KE guarded fanatically, synofryomenoi and scowl, the Embassy of the United States, ready to “sacrifice” for not done any ” provocation “and” abandoned “the notorious ‘parliamentary’ road to the” great change “and” socialism “they promised at the time the twin policies apateoniskon Papandreou Florakis.

This was the first time that chroustsofikoi leaders “K” KE guarding a stranger – not Greek – capitalist building (U.S. Embassy) and even the building, symbol of sovereignty in our country of the U.S. imperialists, the biggest and most bloody imperialist power of our time, and that the name of “cancellation” of any “provocation” by taking a role and fulfilling a mission that was-always belongs to the Police and the Army rather than urban workers – these two key institutions of the bourgeois state and the main supports of the power of the reactionary bourgeoisie.

2. December 2008: by the mighty uprising of the student youth and the side of the reactionary bourgeoisie

The cold-blooded murder, in December 2008, from the Police Karamanliki the young 15 year old student Alexis Grigoropoulos sparked a known militant and the glorious uprising of student youth from end to end the country’s murderous violence against police and police terror – a monumental and unprecedented rebellion panicked and terrorize the whole bourgeoisie (all bourgeois and reformist parties) but also disrupted for nearly one month across Europe (“the risk that the insurrection in Greece to xaplothei and the rest of Europe,” says representatives capital in different countries of the EU, the strong echo of came as Latin America.

Then, maybe some remember the panic Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis and Ministers of the reactionary government had disappeared for nearly a month of politics and life of the bourgeoisie had to retrieve that month the Papariga-Karatzaferis elevating the records to government representatives and ministers of Public Order with statements claiming that the daily events of those days was a “project abroad”, ie that this magnificent uprising of youth motivated and guided by supposedly “external enemies” or else: Papariga ” masked the nucleus has been designed abroad, “Karatzaferis’ patrons Parakentro abroad behind the attacks”, etc. or even Papariga “draft domestic and foreign centers riots» («Real news »21/12/2008, p. 1), etc. etc. – reactionary statements, misleading and defamatory in nature, at the expense of the great uprising of the student youth, published in the bourgeois and fascist type of those days (” Today’s “,” Adesmeftos Type “, etc.) with fasistofyllada” Today’s “praise and public headlines, the” audacity “, meaning the betrayal of the leadership of social democratic” K “KE:” Only the Communist Party dared to clash openly with the nuclei of which praktoriskon perform the dirty destabilization plan “(” Today’s “15/12/2008, p. 1).

After Papariga along with the entire leadership of Khrushchev “K” KE shifted provocative aproschimatista and fiercely against the mighty uprising of the student youth, disparaging the extra in the most vulgar and reactionary way, and passed off with its policy stance on camp of reactionary bourgeoisie – at a time sharpening of class struggle – the guy leading the bourgeois fasistofyllada the “Today’s” invited directly to use in practice members, fans of the urban “K” KE as IMPACT FORCE for smashing the rebellion the Young and “restoration of order of democracy”: “If the police are unable to take their … CITIZENS OR KKE restore order of democracy” (“AVRIANI” 19/12/2008, p. 1).

Despite the appeals section of the urban type led by “Today’s” leaders “K” KE did not dare to “commit suicide” so early (knowing that they have to offer future services, and difficult moments in this chapter as available), downloading the streets of Athens, batter kranoforon armies to suppress the rebellion of youth, members of the IR “K” KE preferred to “roost”, the entire December, the ‘fortress’ of Perissa (no one disagreed) as katatromagmena chicks, looking for warmth, tranquility and comfort beneath the decrepit icy trembling wings panicked sosialimokratissas A. Papariga, perhaps feeling some relief and joy listening to all-night prayers, prayers to “God” and religious melodies of reactionary neo-orthodox theousas ethnikistrias L. Kanellis to “exorcize” at every opportunity the “possessed” and unruly pupils and begged the “Almighty” to the “enlightenment” to finally stop the protests and leave off the “great evil” and “disaster “he found the country. “Heeded,” ultimately, melodic prayers from the “Almighty” that saw be born “divine child” on December 25 (= school holidays and early closure) and thus ended the protracted “tragedy” of the country ie “tragedy” of panic reactionary bourgeoisie that had fitness and military units prepare for surgery at the center of Athens. Already he had failed to lock-outs of the Karamanlis government to close schools-schools that had then promoted from the reformist leaders of the “K” KE through “K” Ne (“Announcement of press office of PA KNE”, 7 / 12/2008) on the affected than those student-student youth to ‘shut down schools and colleges, the universities and colleges, the vocational training institutes and schools of OAED, night schools “(” P “9/12/2008, p. . 15), ie to become practice that required by the reactionary government of Karamanlis attitude forced to leave the familiar “Press Release of the Association of Teachers of Panteion University ‘:” This morning (11.12.08), the Panteion University ended with initiative Panspoudastikis students who relied decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Throughout the post-dictatorship period has not happened close to University decision partisan institution …. “ These are some of the few” exploits “in those days the lackeys of capital reformist leaders of the” K “KE, along of course with that, completely forgotten today, fascist inspiration and content anekdiigito “story” titled “The wrong call a murderer” (“P” 28/12/2008, “7 days together”) reminiscent of the Nazis as-fascist propaganda of Hitler period in Germany.

3. Ochtovris 2011: ensure-imposition of bourgeois legality – upholding the reactionary bourgeois parliament

The stewardship of the U.S. Embassy along with the Police from the early 80’s by the leadership (Florakis) of the Social “K” KE and fiercely hostile attitude toward leadership Papariga grand uprising of the student youth (in December 2008 ) are the two most important before the 48-hour strike of October (2011), a landmark anepanastatikis action of this Civil Party, because in the first case noted, first, converting members of supporters of the “K” KE on army police soldiers guarding the embassy of an imperialist country, while in the second case mentioned, the political attitudes of leadership, open passage into the camp of the bourgeoisie – a passage that rightly led the bourgeois press (the most blatant example fasistofyllada “Today’s”) to called because of the inability of the police, led by “K” KE to download members-supporters to the streets to quell violent with armies batter-kranoforon the rebellion of youth, ie to use them as shock troops of the capital, substituting Police and city army.

If this day of 48-hour strike (19-20 Ochtovri 2011) the effect of PAME had two important characteristic aspects: a) that permanent scabs mechanism of urban governments (ND-PASOK) with scabs separate character disruptive concentrations (systematic and permanent division in favor of capital, strikes urging the reformist leaders of GSEE-ADEDY) and b) that of worship and apotheosis of bourgeois legality, ie the voluntary acceptance of the covered behind the so-called “safeguard the paths’ PAME, for which the leadership posts whenever the congratulations and praise of the respective governments and the leadership of Police, and recently, for the umpteenth time, the bourgeois “NEW” fully justified, they note that “the safeguarding of the paths GO get ‘excellent’ by the Police” and “senior officer ELAS says features “that” together we have peace of mind, we know how to protest and will not open nostril, rarely cause episodes “to mark the bourgeois tabloid : “the police presence more often than is typical” (“NEW”, 22-23/10/2011, p. 27), the last day of the 48-hour strike (20 Ochtovri) appeared, added a third new and very important but also much more dangerous for the workers and trade union movement: that of defending the act of reactionary bourgeois regime and safeguard-enforcement of bourgeois legality, in consultation with the government of PASOK and the direct cooperation of the police.

And now to the question of safeguarding the civil parliament and ensuring the “Order and Security”, ie the imposition of bourgeois legality of the last day of a 48 hour strike.

First two issues are not disputed by any one, nor from the reformist leaders of the “K” KE-PAME: 1) that the “encirclement of the House” and 2) that the “encirclement” of the House “had nothing to do with preventing Members enter the House. “

On the first, the reformist Social Democrat G. Perros, a leading member of PAME, protested Wednesday (19.10.2011) the concentration of Concorde, “everyone in the encirclement of the House from all sides from all roads’ ( “P” 20/10/2011, p. 10) and “now encircle the House from all sides” (“P” 20/10/2011, p. 8), etc. etc..

On the second, a commentary by former partner and like-minded social democrats of Khrushchev (member of the JV period Koligianni), and current Deputy Prime Minister I. Pangalos, who said in a televised broadcast that “Aleka Papariga invites people to encircle Thursday the House to prevent Members to arrive at Parliament for the enactment of polynomoschediou,” the ” Rizospastis’ response, apologoumenos and angry, he wrote the truth: “this is a lie and slander drawn. PAME, organized this mobilization is not intended as p m e d i m in a (Signed ours) for Members to vote “(” P “18/10/2011, p.6), then cites Papariga extract statement the previous day: “to clarify the following: the encirclement and exclusion of the House decided by unions and other organizations, which support and will support, has nothing to do with preventing members from entering the House “(” P “18/10/2011, p.6) – an” intelligent “in koutoponiria proposal-energy (at the suggestion apparently consulting the bourgeoisie), but first and foremost, and this is important, highly e u INVITATION d e t r-action proposal for the government of PASOK, the reactionary bourgeoisie and all parties in a moment of great and deep crisis of the bourgeois political system and the sharpening of class struggle. Therefore, “the encirclement of the House from all sides from all roads’, and d e d a m n emphasis is ensuring attendance of Members of Parliament (under the protection of kranoforon-batter PAME), no was to protect the reformist leaders of the “K” KE-PAME to ‘thousands of toil who marched with flags’ and’ the movement itself “(” P “21/10/2011, p. 10), ( those of PAME is their right, but because truth and “the movement itself?” Who authorized them to do so? whether the “Almighty” Ave Kanellis?), but to guard from all sides and from all streets the bourgeois parliament ie to defend the reactionary bourgeois regime and to ensure, enforce the same civil legitimacy, in cooperation with the leadership of Police – a collaboration that could not be hidden nor A. Papariga when asked if PAME had cooperation with the police, admitted public saying: “in my opinion is correct, I would say that time can not interfere with the police” (“P” 21/10/2011, p. 3) and confirmed the “new” officer of the Headquarters of ELAS: “We asked the demonstrators not to intervene PAME” (“News” 21/10/2011, p.8).

But the “excuse” of “Rizospastis’ and social democratic leaders of the” K “KE-PAME that” encirclement and exclusion of the House “supposedly aimed” to bring the popular mobilization of such pressure, to reject the bill “to achieve “more MPs to vote against the bill” (“P” 18/10/2011, p. 6), is completely punched and completely indefensible. True because there were even greater pressure to be all strikers protesters gathered in one room and in front of Constitution Square and were supposedly “more pressure” scattered in the surrounding streets “circling” the House, probably by reducing the size, volume of the demonstration?

Regarding “K” KE-government cooperation is clearly confirmed, furthermore, from the shameful logydrio Papariga of the House (and even after the unfortunate death of trade union PAME), which is monumental, and xetsipoti proklitikotati support and rotten a deep crisis of civil status.

With great satisfaction accepted the stewardship of parliament from the leaders of the “K” KE-PAME Members of all parties, who generously bestowed praise on GO, including the deputy prime minister Eleftherios Venizelos, who in the cabinet said the “Communist Party contributed to the management and maintenance of order,” as other series and Adonis Georgiadis, member of the Nazi-fascist LAOS, who said: “Today the Communist Party of Greece impressed. Firstly because the regime has behaved perfectly protecting the Parliament by hooded. I applaud this act. All through the House say fortunately there PAME around and is experienced yesterday’s »(« Alter », main news, 20/10/2011), but many journalists in the central news as Hadjinicolaou N. J. Pretenteris, etc. etc.

Finally, in conclusion briefly, the antistalinikoi-antizachariadikoi reformist leaders of the “K” KE-PAME to the “encirclement of the House from all sides from all roads” passed in the course of their counter-revolutionary action – a period of intensification of class struggle – for the first time in a completely new phase: first, upholding the bourgeois parliament, second, safeguarding it, defended the reactionary bourgeois regime, third, secured-imposed the “Order and Security” ie bourgeois legitimacy with batter- kranoforous of PAME in cooperation with the Police, the fourth in the enforcement effort of bourgeois legality substituted the Police-Urban Army, taking-fulfilling their duties, fifth, replacing Police-Urban Army, evolved, transformed in practice for the first time in IMPACT POWER Capital, dragging in this revolutionary and extreme dangerous urban direction thousand employees shall-believers with the vanguard of batter-kranoforous PAME (had so much discredited in the eyes of striking workers in the Constitution, but nationwide, that neither ” radical “dared leaves 21.22 and 23/10/2011 to publish photographs of” young men “thugs batter-kranoforon of PAME and has published and 3 leaves a host of other photographs).


KKE 1918-55: The reformist leaders of the “K” KE-PAME: Impact force of the capital upheld the reactionary bourgeois parliament

Photo: Members of PAME in the role of Riot police uphold the Parliament using sticks and helmets

Thousands of workers who were striking and protesting, anti-fascists of various political orientations, even members and followers of “K”KE and PAME in Syntagma Square outside the Greek Parliament the second day (October 20) of the 48-hour general strike were surprised when they saw the reformist leaders to assume stewardship of the reactionary bourgeois parliament and ensuring the “Order and Security”, i.e the imposition of bourgeois legality, with the “excuse” of safeguarding their “own” concentration (ie that the concentration of PAME), apparently replacing the riot police and the civilian Army which is used by the bourgeoisie when the police is inefficient and unable to to defend the reactionary bourgeois regime.

The October issue of Anasintaxi has an article with our position on the matter in Greek which can be found in


KKE 1918-1955 – PAME: at the service of capital, the divisive and strikebreaking role of its reformist leaders

On the occasion of its 3rd Panhellenic Conference

In the reformist “Announcement-call” of PAME (=”All Workers’ Militant Front”) (“Rizospastis”, 27/5/2007) on the occasion of its third panhellenic conference, it is mentioned that the founding of PAME, in 1999, is “an accomplishment of the working class” and that PAME acts according to the line of “class struggle”.

First of all it has to be clarified from the beginning that PAME is not a trade union and therefore it cannot initiate a struggle like calling a strike. As its name suggests, it is rather a coordination platform set up by various associations and trade unionists. Even so, both of the claims mentioned above are utterly demagogic and bear absolutely no relation to reality, that is, to the nature of PAME which is not revolutionary but a reformist trade-union platform as it is shown below. Consequently, PAME neither constitutes an accomplishment of the working class, nor adheres to the line of the “revolutionary class struggle” for the “fulfillment of the tasks corresponding to the needs of the working class” as most falsely its leaders purport for the sake of disorientating and deceiving the workers.

It must be emphasized that the truly revolutionary trade unions were schools of class struggle and schools of socialism-communism, in other words, they were always linking: a) the struggle for the economic and social demands with the political demands, giving priority to the latter and b) the anti-imperialist with the revolutionary struggle for the abolition of the exploiting capitalist system and the establishment of socialism-communism.

The revolutionary trade unions, as organs of struggle against the capital have permanently and constantly inscribed on their flag the revolutionary slogan of Marx: “abolition of the wages system”. As Marx emphasized: “the trade unions are the schools of socialism. In trade unions, the workers are shaped into socialists, because the struggle against the capital is carried out, on daily basis, before their very eyes” and Lenin also said that: “the working class limiting itself to the economic struggle, loses its political independence, allows itself to be dragged by other political parties, betrays the great emblem: the emancipation of the working class must be carried out by the workers themselves”

In complete contradiction to the above, PAME was founded from the very beginning, in 1999, as a reformist trade union platform guided ideologically by Khrushchevian revisionism that is opposite and hostile to the proletarian revolution and the whole Marxist concept of socialism. It continues along the reformist course of the World Trade Union Organization (WTO) which despite the fact that followed a revolutionary line, from its creation (October 1945) until the mid-50s, after the final dominance of Khrushchevian revisionism (1956) it degenerated into a reformist trade union organization abandoning the revolutionary and anti-imperialist line for good.

It is precisely the line of WTO, promulgated during the period of Khrushchev – Brezhnev – Gorbachev, which the PAME (“K”KE) reformist leaders follow today as well as its fraternal trade union organization A.P. (SYN). The reformists of PASKE (PASOK) are the same whereas the DAKE (ND) fascists were always representatives of the employers’ trade unionism. All these factions, participate in the Executive Committee of the reformist General Confederation of Greek Workers (GSEE) and the Higher Union of Civil Servants (ADEDY).

The PAME leaders are reformist not only because they have abandoned the line of revolutionary struggle and follow the line of class co-operation and limiting the struggle to economic demands but because they have also resigned from the immediate economic demands such as the salary payment for the 1st of May and the return of all the money stolen from the Insurance Institutions. Moreover they play a divisive and strikebreaking role through the separate rallies they organize. Concerning the imperialist war against Iraq, they showed, like the “K”KE leadership, a pro-American and pro-imperialist attitude because, during the war demonstrations: a) they adopted the slogan “Greece out of the war”(!) instead of the right anti-imperialist one: “Anglo-American imperialist occupation forces out of Iraq” not blaming thus the Anglo-American imperialists and b) they supported and continue to support the Quislings of the fraternal Iraqi “C”P that welcomed the invasion and participated in the first puppet government installed by the Anglo-American forces.

A. The divisive role of the PAME reformists

During the last years, the PAME leaders organize, on permanent basis, separate rallies on the of 1st May causing thus a split in the trade union movement not only on the higher but also on intermediate level across the country. Their excuse for doing this is that these divisive rallies offer allegedly by themselves the possibility to break away from the reformists and they are, therefore, of revolutionary character. It is, of course, obvious that the separate rallies neither distance the workers from reformist nor do they have by themselves an anti-imperialist and revolutionary character. On the contrary, the features that make the revolutionaries and the reformists essentially distinct and give the revolutionary content of a trade unionist rally are two: first, the general anti-imperialist and revolutionary line in combination with the violent overthrow of capitalism second, the revolutionary line of class struggle that defends the class interests of the workers and the wide masses maintaining an unbreakable unity between economic and political demands and always subdued to the general revolutionary direction.

If the separate rallies were by themselves revolutionary, devoid of the corresponding content, then, following this “criterion” of the PAME reformists, one would make the preposterous conclusion that this year’s separate rally for the 1st of May organized by the DAKE fascists was also a “revolutionary” one! Of course it was a counter-revolutionary and pro-capitalist rally apart from divisive.

A quick reference to the two separate PAME rallies on the occasion of the 1st of May (in 2005 and 2007) will show much better not only the divisive role of the PAME leaders but the abandonment of the defense of, even, basic reformist demands. Both rallies were reformist, in their content, because of the general Khrushchevian line and also because they didn’t satisfy the second condition, that is the defense of the current interests of the working class.

In the rally of the 1st of May 2005, the PAME reformists came up with the false dilemma: “1st of May, strike or bank holiday?” The harm of such a slogan to the interests of the working class can be properly understood if one considers the fact that in Greece the working class has accomplished, through a long struggle, so that the 1st of May is also a paid bank holiday besides a day of strike. This hasn’t diminished the size of the 1st of May rallies at all. However the reactionary Karamanlis government decided to abolish the bank holiday, that year and, thus, the leaders of PAME, using the above slogan were, in essence, completely identified with this decision. The result was that hundreds of millions of Euros went to the capitalists and the bourgeois state instead of the working people. On the contrary, in the rally organized by the GSEE-ADEDY reformists, the central slogan was “pay the working people” a fact that permitted the president of GSEE to criticize, from the left, the PAME leaders and accuse them of being at the service of capitalist interests. In the same separate rally for the 1st of May, the PAME reformists leaders didn’t defend even this particular economic interest-accomplishment of the working class but the interests of the bourgeois class, since, through their treacherous attitude, they made easier for the capitalists to pocket the millions of Euros that should have been paid to the working people.

In fact, the PAME reformist leaders, due to their treacherous attitude supporting the abolition of the 1st May bank holiday, placed themselves to the right not only of the reformists of GSEE-ADEDY-A.P. but also of the DAKE fascists; the latter, fearing the political cost, didn’t dare to express in public their approval of the government’s decision to abolish the 1st of May bank holiday: “DAKE issued an announcement whereby calls the government to move the bank holiday from the 1st to 11th of May, as had been done in the past”. So, the only trade union organization that supported this reactionary decision of the government was PAME. This was the reason why the PAME leaders were warmly congratulated by the fascist ND cadre A. Andreoulakos.

This rally of PAME wasn’t only a divisive rally but also a rally in favor of the abolition of 1st May bank holiday, in other words, it was a pro-government rally supporting the reactionary decision of the Karamanlis government.

In 2007’s rally for the 1st of May, the reformists leaders of GSEE-ADEDY had rightly adopted as central slogan the following: “return all the stolen money back to the Insurance Institutions” (as a response to the government-backed embezzlement of Insurance funds) whereas in their separate, divisive, rally the PAME leaders not only didn’t adopt the above slogan as the central one but not at all. Instead, they put forward the pro-governmental request voiced by the DAKE fascists asking for the return of all the money stolen from the Insurance Institutions since 1950 (!), that is to say, never. In this way, the leaders of PAME were aligned-identified with: a) the DAKE fascists and b) the reactionary Karamanlis government both of whom were against the return of the stolen money back to the Insurance Institutions.

In this case too, the reformists of GSEE-ADEDY were at the left of the reformist leaders of PAME.

The two above mentioned separate rallies organized by PAME on the occasion of the 1st of May clearly show that not only they were not revolutionary rallies but they didn’t seek to defend not even the concrete and rightful economic demands of the working people: a) to receive the payment for the bank holiday of the first of May (2005) b) to have all the stolen money from the Insurance Institutions returned (2007). These rallies of PAME were, therefore, reformist, divisive and pro-governmental.

On the 1st of May 2006, the reformist leaders of PAME committed an almost unprecedented treason since they didn’t appeal for a struggle against industrial capitalists and capital in general but only against the reformist leaders adopting the slogan: “Turn your back to the compromised trade unionists”.

Not surprisingly, PAME faces serious problems due to its divisive tactics. One of the its founding cadres, and a long-term member in its Executive Secretariat, T. Fotopoulos, mentioned the following in his resignation letter: “In OTE (Greek Telecom) the ESK (the “C”PG representatives) allied with ASSE (the K.A. representatives – a small group participating in PAME as well) and both went to the elections under a common slate called A.M. But the next day, having secured the election of its own members, ESK remained a separate faction and not a part of A.M although these people were elected as nominees of the latter!

PAME doesn’t take part in the anti-globalization actions except in WTO which they strive to resurrect by establishing a European Buro where they are the…sole members. The persistence of “K”KE and PAME to hold separate rallies has caused frictions with the few small groups with which formed or is forming an alliance like DIKKI or K.A

B. The strikebreaking role of the PAME leaders

The whole activity and the role of PAME is not only divisive – in the framework, of course, of reformism that dominates the trade union movement today – and in favor of capital; it has become, in addition, during the last years, something much worse in relation to working people strikes: PAME has become, with its separate rallies, the number 1 strikebreaking force in the reformist trade union movement. This because, on permanent and systematic basis – and not by mistake – it causes a split in the strike mobilization of the working people undermining its massiveness from the beginning.

Let’s take for example the latest strikes of sailors, schoolteachers, university teachers and university students.

In the case of the sailors’ strike, the trade union leaders of PAME, apart from breaking the strike, they also organized separate rallies that weren’t simply divisive but were, first and foremost, strikebreaking clearly aiming at the split of the sailors unity and the weakening of their struggle. They were strikebreaking rallies in complete coordination with the governmental strikebreaking mechanisms, in the framework of “K”KE-ND cooperation. Their attitude was so shamelessly pro-governmental that, while the barbarous police was attacking the rally held in solidarity to the tailors, the PAME reformist Manusogiannakis appeared on television not to condemn the fascist police assault but to distance the position of PAME from the event stating that the people beaten up by MAT (the infamous special police forces) didn’t belong to PAME!!!

In the case of the schoolteachers’ great and continuous strike that shook up the whole country, the PAME trade unionists in the Primary School Teachers Federation (DOE) not only rejected the strike and tried to prevent it but, when this started and for the duration, they were systematically undermining it through separate rallies of strikebreaking character. We pointed out at the time:

Only the reformist trade union factions (PASKE-A.P-P.) voted for the five-days strikes of the school teachers that shook up the whole country, as it is mentioned in “Rizospastis” in relation to the strikebreaking attitude of ESAK-DEE (the PAME representatives in the DOE): “the votes of PASKE, A.P and P. added up and the program of action was decided” (“R”, 7/7/2006, p. 18).

The reformist leaders of ESAK-DEE, having initially rejected and sabotaged the decision for the repeated 5-days strikes, went on to slander them claiming that they allegedly serve very well the pre-election needs of PASOK, few days before the October municipal elections (“R”, 7/7/2006, p.18). When the great strike began, they directly undermined the unity of the striking struggle by organizing separate rallies, merging, thus, with the DAKE reactionaries into a unified strikebreaking mechanism in the service of the government. It is more than obvious, and the PAME leaders cannot fail to realize, that without unity it’s impossible to achieve the massiveness of the struggle, a necessary condition for its successful completion” (“Anasintaxi”, No. 236, 15-30 October 2006, p.3).

Finally, the leaders of PAME came up against of the university teachers and students struggle; they openly opposed to the schools’ occupations by the students and the continuous strike of the university teachers. When the struggle began, they tried desperately to thwart it and then, after their failure to achieve this, they undermined it by organizing separate strikebreaking rallies. As a matter of fact the leaders of PAME went so far to place their rally stand next to the one of POSDEP-OLME-DOE in one of the great rallies held by the latter in Syntagma square. We wrote then about that rally:

“The only “note of discord”, the only negative and harmful event in that rally was the separate, strikebreaking rally in Omonia square organized by the reformist leaders of PAME. But this time they weren’t limited to the separate demonstration but they made a further step: they provocatively set up, obviously under instructions by the Karamanlis government, a second platform in Syntagma next to the one of POSDEP-OLME-DOE, not confronting the government but the Teachers Federation leading the struggle.

That the strikebreaking activity of the PAME leaders is carried out under the instructions of the Karamanlis government and in the framework of “K”KE-ND cooperation, was shown once more by the fact that also in this rally the blocs of PAME were small (numbering about 1000 people) (“PRIN”, 14/1/2007, p.13). The blocs were consciously and purposefully kept small in size in order to fulfill the goals agreed on with the government: a) the PAME leaders act in a strikebreaking way at the service of the government’s strikebreaking tactics b) avoid to put pressure on the government (a greater number of participants in the blocs would increase the pressure on the government upsetting the “K”KE-ND agreement)

Just imagine what would have been the picture if the other reformist trade union organizations had also set up their own platforms or what would have happened if the Teachers Federations POSDEP-OLME-DOE, as the leadership of the struggle, had rightly demanded the removal of the PAME reformists” (“Anasintaxi”, No 242, 15-31 January 2007, p.1).

From the above, it is evident that PAME is a reformist trade union organization which not simply follows the line of class cooperation but, at the same time, it plays a divisive and strikebreaking role, in the framework of the trade union movement, and in certain cases, like the ones mentioned above, its position is on the right wing of GSEE-ADEDY. This strikebreaking role is fully integrated-aligned with the strikebreaking mechanisms of the Karamanlis reactionary government.

C. Only the path of unity in struggle can stop the capital’s attacks

In their “Announcement-call”, the PAME leaders mention that their trade union platform “unites the working people into a unified class fighting capital and its agents”. This claim is utterly false and it only aims at the disorientation and the deception of the working class since the UNITY of the working class presupposes an anti-imperialist and revolutionary line in the trade unions, which doesn’t exist in the case of PAME because its activity is guided by the reformist social democratic Khrushchevian views, that is, the reformist line that dominated WTO from the mid-50s onwards. PAME, as a reformist trade union platform, is dividing the working class, just like in the older times, the social democratic reformist trade unions did and today GSEE, ADEDY.

PAME is not dividing only the working class but also the reformist camp with its separate rallies. Moreover, with the separate rallies of strikebreaking character during any striking mobilization, they, from the very beginning, cause a rift in the unity of the working class, the MASSIVENESS of the mobilization making it unavoidably INNEFECTIVE.

The class conscious and revolutionary workers cannot but raise the following fundamental question: “Is the working class able to repel the capital’s attacks given the absence of revolutionary trade unions and, if yes, how?”

The answer to this, fundamental and vital for the working class struggle, question has been already provided by life itself in the past but also at the present and it constitutes the answer of the revolutionary Marxism. The working class is indeed able – despite the absence of revolutionary trade unions – to repel the capital’s attacks. This can be achieved only along the path of UNITY that secures the maximum MASSIVENESS, two absolutely necessary conditions that can guarantee the EFFECTIVENESS of the mobilization and yield victory for the working people. The case in which the Insurance Bill was withdrawn in 2001 (by the Simitis government) after the massive panhelenic strike (at that time PAME wisely didn’t dare to organize a separate rally) and that of great, massive mobilization of students and working people against the Contract of First Employment (CFE) introduced by the right-wing government of Dominique de Villepin in France show the only right PATH. The same is shown by the great, massive mobilization of students and university students in Greece that prevented the reactionary revision of the Constitution’s article 16.

Moreover, the massive popular mobilization in Latin America countries – despite the absence of revolutionary trade unions and revolutionary communist parties – not only repelled the attacks coming from the indigenous capital, the IMF, the International Bank but also repeatedly ousted whole governments in a number of subcontinent countries.

Finally, it is a common knowledge that the sporadic acts of mobilization organized by PAME didn’t repel any attack from the capital, didn’t have and couldn’t have had absolutely no result; they were simply acts that served the petty-party and propaganda purposes of the PAME-“K”KE reformist leaders and aimed at the deception of the working people.

D. Further developments

After the massive rally organized by GSEE-ADEDY on the12th of December 2007 in Athens and in other Greek cities, the social democrat G. Marinos (new member of the “K”KE Politburo), hiding the fact that the panhelenic strike was called by the reformist leaders of GSEE-ADEDY, seems to worry very much about the size (5 times larger than the one of PAME) and the large participation of working people, including “a great number of employees in Olympic airways, lawyers, engineers, journalists and doctors” in the massive rally in Athens. Then, ridiculing himself he invites the working people to “think twice” about the fact they joined their trade unions rallies and urges them not to participate in theses but to the divisive, strikebreaking, progovernmental ones of the reformist PAME. At the same time, he advertises it as an allegedly “class force” which follows “the line of class struggle” that secures “the unity of the working class”!!!