This article was first published in the theoretical journal of the Communist Party of Mexico, “El Machete”, issue 4
Giorgos Marinos is a member of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee, KKE (Communist Party of Greece)
The communist movement struggles in complicated conditions and therefore it is imperative to intensify the process of developing the relations between the Communist Parties as well as the collective exchange of experience and the joint activity. There is a need to further discuss the necessity of the revolutionary strategy that corresponds to the increased needs of the class struggle, to the abolition of the capitalist exploitation, to the construction of the new socialist-communist society.
The reinforcement of this process requires the strengthening of the independent activity and the ideological-political front of the Communist Parties against the so-called “progressive”, “left” forces and the respective “forums” that follow the path of bourgeois management or promote slogans regarding a “socialism” that has no scientific basis in order to trap popular forces.
Of course this problem does not concern merely “left”, social-democratic forces but parties that still present themselves as communist parties but in practice have been eroded by opportunism and have surrendered to the view of the “humanization” of capitalism, parties that provide support and constitute part of contemporary social democracy.
This does not refer only to the CPUSA but also to the parties in the leadership of the Party of the European Left that belongs (ELP) to the “European Parties” which were created in the framework of the regulations of the imperialist European Union and support its strategy.
The decisive ideological political struggle against these forces is a criterion for the progress of the communist movement and the overcoming of the crisis it faces.
The combination of the joint activity and the discussion so as to achieve the alignment of the principles of our worldview with practice, with the programmatic guidelines, with the policy of alliances, with the orientation of the struggle in the workers’, people’s movement concern the communist parties that refer to Marxism-Leninism and support that they operate on the basis of its principles.
The Adjustment of the Strategy of the Communist Parties to the Historical Era in which They Struggle is Crucial
It’s an indisputable fact that the strategy of the communist parties, the basic direction of their struggle is determined by the character of our era.
The basic contradiction (between capital and labour), the (socialist) character of the revolution and its driving forces, the line for the rallying of forces, the policy of alliances, the orientation of the ideological-political work among the working class must be examined in order to avoid any one-sided orientation towards the achievement of better conditions for the sale of labour power and in order to direct the struggle towards the overthrow of the causes of exploitation. Social development moves towards a higher level and cannot go back due to the counterrevolution and the overthrow of socialism in the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries.
This is proved by the very history of social development, by the replacement of the primitive communal system by the slaveholding system, its replacement by feudalism, the replacement of feudalism by capitalism, the socialist revolution in Russia, the construction of socialism and the creation of the socialist system.
This course has been characterized by major social confrontations, victories and defeats of the leading classes. There have been setbacks but the decisive element has been the general law concerning the replacement of the old socio-economic system by the new one.
The development of capitalism is a result of its very laws. The seeds of the capitalist relations of production were created in the framework of feudalism at different paces from country to country. Pre-monopoly capitalism was shaped and completed, the concentration and centralization of capital increased, monopolies and stock enterprises were created.
Monopoly capitalism prevailed and led to an unprecedented sharpening of the contradiction between the productive forces and the capitalist relations of production.
Consequently, the discussion of the CPs about the elaboration of a contemporary revolutionary strategy and tactics must be oriented towards these crucial issues. Although tactics might be a flexible factor they are not determined in a subjective way but arise from the strategy itself, they are a part of it and serve it.
A communist party might declare that it struggles for the overthrow of capitalism, for socialism, it might defend Marxism-Leninism in words, it might wage class battles but it may also have a strategy formed according to the requirements of a previous historical period i.e. it might not treat the role of monopolies and the current stage of the systems’ development in an objective way; it might not bring to the forefront the basic contradiction between capital and labour and the socialist character of the revolution or in some cases it might determine its strategy according to the reality of the period of colonialism although the bourgeois state has developed and the conditions have changed.
That is to say, it might seek an intermediate stage between capitalism and socialism, consider this strategy effective for the concentration of forces but in practice it is struggling for a solution that remains within the terrain of capitalism since the power and the means of production will remain in the hands of the bourgeois class and the capitalist exploitation and anarchy will be maintained.
As long as such approaches are transformed into a theoretical view and linked to political decisions regarding the participation in or the support for a government of bourgeois management, the consequences are very negative because the system gains time and the subjective factor, i.e. the party and the working class, is educated to seek solutions within the framework of capitalism.
The problems regarding the character of the revolution should have been resolved many years ago. However, due to historical events, elaborations of previous decades, which were made under the pressure of opportunism and social democracy, the intermediate stage prevailed as well as the rationale of the “antimonopoly” governments on the terrain of the system.
Today we are obliged to examine this course with a sense of responsibility and take into account that the classics of Marxism had already defined the essence of the problem and defined , to the extent they were able, the basic axes for the direction of the struggle from the mid 19th century, in the maelstrom of bourgeois-democratic revolutions. Lenin completed this work in practice with his theoretical work and the example of the October Socialist Revolution in 1917.
In the preface to his work “Contribution to the critique of political economy” Marx provided a valuable methodological instrument stressing that:
“(…) At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution…”
Marx further developed this idea in the first volume of Capital. ” (…) the centralization of the means of production and socialization of labour at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. This integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated (…)”
In many of his works, like “Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism”, Lenin made a step further in the revolutionary thinking, by studying the new conditions and noted that: “private economic and private property relations constitute a shell which no longer fits its contents, a shell which must inevitably decay if its removal is artificially delayed, a shell which may remain in a state of decay for a fairly long period (if, at the worst, the cure of the opportunist abscess is protracted), but which will inevitably be removed (…)”.
His work “Under a false flag”, where he determined the historical epochs, constitutes a significant instrument for the communist parties.
The first epoch, according to Lenin, the period from the Great French Revolution to the Franco-Prussian war is one of the rise of the bourgeoisie, of its triumph, an epoch of bourgeois-democratic movements in general and of bourgeois-national movements in particular, an epoch of the rapid breakdown of the obsolete feudal-absolutist institutions.
The second epoch (1871-1914), is an epoch in which a new class is preparing and slowly mustering its forces (the contemporary working class and its movement).
The third epoch, from 1914 onwards places the bourgeoisie in the same “position” as that in which the feudal lords found themselves during the first epoch. This is the epoch of imperialism and imperialist upheavals.
We live in this epoch, in the epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism and we should examine in a very concrete fashion which strategy corresponds to our era.
The objective conditions require a strategy and tactics that aim at the solution of the main contradiction between capital and labour, at the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, at socialist construction. A strategy that will serve the prospect of the working class power, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the socialization of the means of production, central planning, workers’ and social control.
This is the aim of the struggle of the KKE. This direction was highlighted by the scientific examination of the development of capitalism, by the sharpening of the basic contradiction and the other contradictions of the system.
The recent 19th Congress of the KKE elaborated and enriched the party’s programme and posed basic issues which it wants to discuss with other communist parties.
Capitalism in Greece is in the imperialist stage of its development, in an intermediate position in the international imperialist system, with strong uneven dependencies on the USA and the EU.
The programme of the KKE stresses that the Greek people will be liberated from the shackles of capitalist exploitation and the imperialist unions when the working class together with its allies carries out the socialist revolution and moves forwards to construct socialism-communism. The KKE’s strategic goal is the conquest of revolutionary working-class power, the dictatorship of the proletariat, for socialist construction as the immature phase of the communist society. The revolutionary change in Greece will be socialist. The motor forces of the socialist revolution will be the working class as the leading force, the semi-proletarians, the oppressed popular strata of the urban self-employed, the poor farmers.
Over the last 20 years, the already mature material pre-conditions for socialism in Greece have developed even further. The capitalist relations have expanded and strengthened, in agricultural production, education, health, culture-sports and the mass media. There was greater concentration of wage labour and capital in manufacturing, retail trade, construction, in tourism. Enterprises belonging to private capital have developed with the abolition of the state monopoly in telecommunications and in the monopolised sections of energy and transport. Wage labour increased significantly as a percentage of employment as a whole.
The KKE operates in the direction of preparing the subjective factor for the prospect of the socialist revolution, despite the fact that the time period of its outbreak is determined by objective pre-conditions, the revolutionary situation (It is only when the “lower classes” do not want to live in the old way and the “upper classes” cannot carry on in the old way that the revolution can triumph). The basic guidelines that respond to the necessity of the preparation of the party and the workers’ and people’s movement are the strengthening of the KKE, the regroupment of the labour movement, the people’s alliance. The People’s Alliance, expresses the interests of the working class, the semi-proletarians, the self-employed and the poor farmers of the youth and the women from the working class-popular strata in the struggle against the against the monopolies and capitalist ownership, against the assimilation of the country in the imperialist unions. The Peoples’ Alliance is a social one and has movement characteristics in a line of rupture and overthrow.
In these given conditions it is organized and coordinated for the resistance, solidarity, for survival. The struggle for the disengagement from the EU and NATO is linked with the struggle against the power of the monopolies and the struggle of the working class and its allies for working class-people’s power. The People’s Alliance adopts the socialization of the monopolies, of all the concentrated means of production, central planning and workers’-social control. The notions democracy, people’s sovereignty, imperialism and imperialist war have a deeper, class content for the people’s alliance. The People’s Alliance today has a certain form with the common framework of activity amongst the labour and trade union movement through PAME, the poor farmers through PASY, the self-employed, tradesmen and craftsmen through PASEVE, the young men and women rallied in MAS, the women through OGE’s associations and groups. It is not an alliance of political parties.
The KKE participates in its organs and in its ranks through its cadre and members, through the members of its youth, KNE, who are elected in the organs of the movement and work in the organizations of the working class, the self-employed, the poor farmers, the students, the school students and the women. The course of the political struggle includes the possibility of the emergence of political forces that express positions of petty bourgeois strata, which agree in one way or another with the anti-capitalist, anti-monopoly character of the social–political struggle, with the necessity of its direction towards the working class and people’s power and economy.
The KKE, maintaining its independence, will seek the joint action with these forces in supporting the People’s Alliance. This cooperation will not be transformed into a unified organ of the Alliance comprised of the parties-constituent parts with a structured organisational form and structures. Objectively an organization with a form like this will be short-lived, it will not contribute to the development of the labour movement and the movement of its allies, it will come into conflict with the independence of the KKE. The KKE does not hide the fact that its strategic goal is socialism-communism, the overthrow of bourgeois power and the conquest of political power by the working class. The activity of the KKE in a non-revolutionary situation decisively contributes to the preparation of the subjective factor (party, working class, alliances) for revolutionary conditions, for the realization of its strategic duties:
The labour movement, the movements of the urban self-employed and farmers and the form that their alliance takes on (the People’s Alliance) with anti-monopoly and anti-capitalist goals, with the vanguard activity of the KKE’s forces, in non-revolutionary conditions, constitute the first form for the creation of the revolutionary workers’ and people’s front in revolutionary conditions.
In the conditions of the revolutionary situation, the revolutionary workers’ and people’s front, using all forms of its activity, can become the centre of the popular uprising against capitalist power.
These are fundamental issues for all communist parties.
Of course the formation of a revolutionary strategy requires serious theoretical work and a decisive stance in order to overcome previous analyses which were entangled in the logic of the intermediate stages. This is very important for all the parties all over the world. It is also particularly important for the communist parties in Latin America even more so as various substitutes for scientific socialism have emerged over the recent years in order to absorb the class tensions and assimilate working class forces within the boundaries of capitalism.
Certain Thoughts about Latin America
The KKE is following and studying the developments in the imperialist system, it is carefully examining the processes which are underway in the various countries or groups of countries, the development of the labour and people’s movement, it expresses its internationalist solidarity. And this is what it will do in the next period as well.
In this framework, our party is obliged to take a specific position, taking part in the discussion which has begun in the International Communist Movement, in the struggle that is developing on strategically important issues.
Wide popular masses in Latin America, indignant at the anti-people political line that was implemented for many years by liberal and social-democratic parties and governments, entrusted their votes to political forces that promoted political positions and electoral programmes to relieve the poor working class and popular forces, using slogans about independence and sovereignty of these countries, which have the confrontation with the uneven relations and dependencies on the USA as their spear head.
In some instances CPs that support or even participate in these governments, take part in alliance formations created by and centred on petty bourgeois, social-democratic political forces.
This process has expanded, fostering expectations amongst the peoples, there is talk about a positive correlation of forces which will be reinforced and will create preconditions for conflicts with capital’s forces, for radical changes.
This is what as a rule is developing with variations in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, as well as in Venezuela, Bolivia etc.
The KKE has in a practical way expressed its solidarity with the CPs and the peoples of the region, has condemned e.g. the attempt to overthrow President Chavez in Venezuela. It studies the popular processes, the aggressive reactions of sections of the bourgeois class, the interventions of the USA which historically aims at ensuring the most effective political solution in each country of the region for the interests of the monopolies.
Our party does not judge intentions, but considers it necessary to examine the basic objective facts that can contribute to analysing the situation as it has been formed.
First, the political power and the means of production remain in the hands of the bourgeois class in the countries of Latin America where the position of “progressivism” is developing, where profit is the criterion of development, where the exploitation of man by man is maintained.
This is the basic issue. The governments of “progressivism” (with differentiations) are managing the capitalist system in as a rule a social-democratic direction, taking certain measures to relieve the popular forces from extreme poverty and to safeguard a minimum level of social services so that labour power can be reproduced, which remains a commodity. These governments, also, are nationalizing certain private businesses, especially in the energy and mining sectors.
This element does not constitute a radical change, because it is a development that is taking place in the framework of the more general capitalist relations of production and state ownership (the collective capitalist), does not change the exploitative character of these enterprises, profit remains the criterion. Scattered sections of capital are united, capital concentration and bourgeois modernization are promoted, through the intervention of the state sector.
We begin from a specific starting point. The bourgeois state, irrespective of the form it takes, is a state of the capitalists and “The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over.” (Engels, Socialism Scientific and Utopian)
Second, when capitalist relations of production remain in force and the surplus value, the unpaid labour, is transformed into capital which is accumulated, the basis for the sharpening of the basic contradiction of the system is maintained. The anarchy in production and the preconditions for the manifestation of the capitalist crisis are formed in the growth period of the capitalist economy, through the increase of unemployment, the expansion of relative and absolute destitution, the abolition of rights that had been gained in the previous period.
A vicious circle is manifesting itself and for this reason in contrast to previous periods the situation is a very demanding one, the position that mentions that “now a section of the people lives better” is not sufficient. In the final analysis, bourgeois modernization and the reproduction of labour power at a minimum level that will allow the production of surplus value is an aim of the bourgeois class, even of its most conservative political representatives.
The relentless activity of the laws of capitalism led to the crisis in the 1990s in many Latin American countries. And the contradictions of the system are expressed through the rapid rise of inflation in Argentina, in Venezuela etc. to very high levels, which results in the reduction of the purchasing power of the families from the popular strata, and even in the instance when measures are taken to control the prices.
We do not underestimate the indexes which are recorded e.g. the reduction of the percentage of poverty, but this can not conceal the problem of widespread poverty, the causes which create and reproduce it, the enormous profits that are in the hands of the capitalists at the same time.
The recent mobilizations e.g. in Brazil and in Argentina can not be interpreted correctly only from the standpoint that concentrates on the attempts of the opposition to gain ground. This is well-known. The basic issue is that there exist sharpening popular problems, there is an objective basis for the development of the struggles and the demands for the satisfaction of the people’s demands. This is the duty of the labour movement which must contribute to the organization of the working class and the development of its struggle in a class oriented, anti-monopoly-anti-capitalist direction, so that it is not trapped in the one or the other governmental and management solution.
There are certain useful examples:
Brazil is a modern capitalist state, with a high position in the imperialist system. It is the 6th capitalist power in the world.
It possesses powerful industry and agricultural production, significant infrastructure, mineral wealth, energy resources.
It possesses a large working class. The material preconditions which allow the construction of socialism have matured.
Its monopoly capital extends its activities particularly in Latin America, and in Africa, Asia, all over the globe. It takes part in the international inter-imperialist competition, utilising the participation of Brazil in BRICS.
53 million people live under the poverty line and 23 million in conditions of extreme absolute destitution in this state.
The one hundred largest business groups in 2010 had profits that corresponded to about 56% of the GDP, the 20 largest business groups had profits that corresponded to 35% of the wealth produced by the workers.
Between 2000 and 2009, the bourgeois state transferred resources that correspond to 45% of the GDP into the hands of finance capital.
We are talking about Brazil and we note that the situation of the working class, the popular strata in other countries of Latin America with a lower position in the imperialist pyramid, where “left” governments are in power, is even worse.
In Bolivia, for example, the richest 100 families own over 80% of the fertile land, while over 80% of the small farmers and Indians live under the poverty line. In all countries, as before, relative and absolute destitution is at high levels, as is work without social-security cover, and child labour.
Dealing with these chronic problems, ensuring the right to work, free health services, education which were achieved by Cuba in a course after the revolution, highlights the necessity of socialism, of working class power, the socialization of the means of production, central planning.
Third, the election programmes of the social-democratic parties around which government formations are formed are characterized by the management of the exploitative system, decorated by various slogans and promises in order to manipulate the popular forces.
For example, the programme of the “New Majority” of Ms Bachelet in Chile constitutes a proposal of bourgeois modernization that seeks to deal with problems of competitiveness in the mining industry, energy etc through the rise in labour productivity, always “with cooperation and dialogue between the public and private sector.”
They aim to assimilate the labour movement in order to promote the bourgeois modernization. Ms Bachelet argues that the “changes can occur through voting” and stresses that she wants “to provide politics with prestige again, to strengthen the institutions, so that all our fellow countrymen can continue to believe in the institutions of Chile.” In her programme she talks about “reducing differences that currently exist among workers and entrepreneurs” and mentions that “productivity must increase in order for the income of the workers to increase”, which in reality leads to the intensification of relative exploitation.
As regards the economy, she promotes the illusion that the (capitalist) “economic development is a basic path in order to deal with inequality, the eradication of poverty, the rise of living conditions”, while at the same time she promises an income’s policy for the many poor families.
The gradual increase in the taxation of the profits from 20 to 24% is balanced out by new incentives and tax breaks that are provided for, in the name of attracting investments.
A basic line of the Chilean government is the “fiscal responsibility in order to create macroeconomic stability”, a tested formula in order to maintain salaries, pensions and social services at a low level.
It may promise a free education system, but it is perpetuating private education, posing the issue of transforming private institutes into “non-profit” ones which will be funded by the state.
The “New Constitution” safeguards “the right to ownership”, the “autonomy of the central bank”, which sets the tone regarding the intervention of the banking system for the management of the capitalist economy based on the interests of the big businesses.
The more general historical experience demonstrates that the support and the participation of CPs in alliance formations or governments of bourgeois management do not favour the development of the people’s struggle. On the contrary, problems are created for the development of the people’s struggle, the viewpoint regarding the “inevitability” of capitalism is strengthened and delays the development of class consciousness, weakens the struggle for socialism and traps popular forces in the quest for solutions inside the framework of the exploitative system, leading then to the support for sections of the bourgeois class, downgrading the level of demands of the working class.
The claims about a change in the correlation of forces in favour of the people and the creation of positive conditions for the struggle of CPs that participate in “progressive” governments of bourgeois management is a myth that has been refuted in practice. Radical trends have been weakened through this process, the assimilation to the aims of capital has been favoured and the position of social-democracy, of the bourgeois forces as a whole, has been strengthened.
In Europe, parties in France and Italy, with title Communist Party, participated in “left” and “centre-left” governments. The experience is painful. The labour movement was set many years back, a harsh anti-people political line was implemented, these governments took part in imperialist interventions, the communist movement was charged with responsibilities for these things and unreliability.
AKEL won the elections for President of the Republic in Cyprus, it undertook governmental responsibilities but the management of capitalism does not leave room for pro-people solutions. The negative consequences for the people were intense after the outbreak of the capitalist crisis.
These “experiments” went bankrupt and became the bridge for the return of conservative governments, rightwing parties which utilise the disappointment of the people’s expectations in order to impose a harsh anti-people political line.
This evidence must not be underestimated and no one can bypass it, by saying that these “progressive” governments can operate as instruments for the transition to socialism. The historical experience teaches us, particularly the example of Chile.
The euphoria created by the election of President Allende was accompanied by the underestimation of the revolutionary organization and struggle, the entrapment in the parliamentary road, in (bourgeois) legality and institutions, the underestimation of the bourgeois state and its mechanisms.
The bourgeois class and its state, with the assistance of the USA or other imperialist powers, do not hesitate to resort to coups, and the murder of militants. In Colombia, the bourgeois class, the army, the police, every kind of “service” use every means in order to strike against FARC, in order to suffocate the people’s resistance and struggle.
No white-washing of the bourgeois state and no prettifying of the situation is permissible.
In reality, as long as the bourgeois state is maintained, the capitalist ownership and commodity relations in general, the problem of exploitation will be maintained and sharpened, unemployment and poverty will remain, whatever measures taken to relieve the working class and popular strata will be absorbed, the people’s needs will remain unsatisfied. On this basis, the people’s hopes will be disappointed, the people’s endurance will be exhausted, the bourgeois forces will counterattack, utilising the (bourgeois) state apparatus.
On the Economic-Political Unions
The ideological-political confrontation in recent years is intensifying over economic-political inter-state unions, which outside of the European Union, are extending to every region of the world, including Latin America.
What are the self-styled “Union of Nations of South America” (UNASUR), the “Market of the South” (MERCOSUR), the “Community of Latin American Countries and countries of the Caribbean (CELAC) or other unions?
Their very basis demonstrates that these are unions of capitalist states, which irrespectively of whether states participate with governments that call themselves “left” and regardless of the form of management, the basis is comprised of the large monopoly groups and their interests. This is the starting point for the commercial and other financial transactions, the plans being promoted for the development of inter-state relations as well as the relations with other capitalist countries or imperialist unions.
Channels of state consultation for coordinated action against the people’s movements are formed in this framework.
In the framework of uneven development and uneven inter-state relations, the dominant role of Brazil and Argentina can be distinguished which are using these unions for the further advancement of the interests of the monopolies.
The competition between Latin America, the USA and the EU are relations of competition over the control of the markets, and at the same time they are relations of economic and political cooperation. The European Union, for example, as an inter-state imperialist union, gave a lot of emphasis to the “Regional Strategy for Latin America 2007-2013” with the aim of creating a connection between the two regions in the political, economic and social fields, as is referred to in the relevant guidelines.
These unions in Latin America, as well as the “Bolivarian Alliance for America” (ALBA), in which Cuba participates, objectively can not operate in favour of the peoples because despite the strengthening of the economic relations, the exchange of commodities and services, the determining factor is the profit criterion of the capitalist businesses and the participation of Cuba does not change this.
In addition, a more general conclusion has been drawn which stresses that through the international relations, with the intervention of capitalist economic-political unions, the bourgeois class uses new means in order to undermine the class struggle. The recent intervention of the EU in the internal affairs of Cuba, for example, lays on the table the issue of using any economic, trade relations in order to strengthen the forces and interests which seek the restoration of capitalism.
These points about the inter-state unions in Latin America are true in other dimensions, with other more general characteristics, of BRICS (cooperation of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa).
Today, these are not even “emerging” economies, but economies of capitalist states with a strong monopoly base, strong links in the imperialist system which constitute ¼ of the global GDP, 40% of the planet’s population and 26% of its territory.
Due to the capitalist base, the unevenness and uneven relations are maintained. The competition of the BRICS, e.g. with the USA and the EU, is combined with the competition between the BRICS states themselves, because China for example has other political, economic and military capabilities and aims and possibilities in comparison to the other states. For example, in Africa and Latin America the competition is intensifying between Chinese and Brazilian monopolies over the control of natural resources, the markets. The same is the case in the Middle East and North Africa between China and Russia.
Forces which praise BRICS and the high capitalist growth rates are concerned about the slowdown witnessed in the economies of these states and this only one aspect of the developments. Because the outbreak of the crisis, which is in the DNA of capitalism, is gestating for the future.
Consequently, what is required is the sharpening of the class criterion because there is a great danger of an even more significant entrapment of the working class by the false expectations and hopes for pro-people solutions implemented by the bourgeois class, at a national level or via the imperialist inter-state unions.
The view about “progressivism” as well as the analysis that prettifies the imperialist character of the inter-state unions is integrated into the rationale of so-called “21st Century Socialism”, which is being used for the attempted manipulation of the peoples en masse (particularly) of Latin America, after the counterrevolutionary overthrow of socialism in the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries.
This substitute for socialism attempted from the very first moment of its emergence to slander scientific socialism, socialist construction in the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries.
In essence, this is a planned intervention to promote the dangerous opportunist position regarding the “humanization” of capitalism, trapping the class struggle within the boundaries of bourgeois parliamentarianism, denying the revolutionary struggle.
The utopian rationale of the democratization of the bourgeois state, the power of the monopolies and the promotion of the “mixed” capitalist economy are presented as a new “model” of socialism.
They present a mishmash of movements with positions for a social-democratic, keynesian management of the system as “revolutionary subjects” in the place of the working class, the vanguard class whose historic mission is to overthrow capitalist exploitation. They present the solution of CPs collaborating with social-democracy in the place of the need for an alliance policy of the CPs that will contribute to the concentration and preparation of working class-popular forces in an anticapitalist-antimonopoly direction.
The entirety of the positions of the so-called socialism of the 21st century is being used for the ideological corruption of the CPs and this must be decisively confronted on the basis of the laws of the class struggle, socialist revolution and construction.
The opportunist deviation that led to the violation of the laws of socialism, their adulteration and replacement by economic-political laws that correspond to the capitalist system during socialist construction was very costly and brought about the overthrow of working class power and the restoration of the exploitative system.
The birth and development of the monopolies in China and the prevailing of capitalist relations of production, as well as the view and practice of “market socialism” warn us that the counterrevolution is continuing and this is an issue that requires serious reflection on the part of the CPs that are based on Marxism-Leninism.
Basic Laws of Socialist Construction
The KKE through its many years of study analysed the causes of the counterrevolutionary overthrow and confirmed the principles that characterize socialist construction
Socialism as the first phase of the communist socio-economic formation is not an autonomous formation, it is immature communism. The basic law of the communist mode of production is in force; Planned production for the expanded satisfaction of the social needs.
Socialist construction is a unified process, which begins with the conquest of power by the working class. Initially, the new mode of production is formed, which will basically prevail with the total abolition of capitalist relations and the relationship capital-wage labour.
• The means of production are socialized in industry, energy-water, telecommunications, construction, repair, mass transport, retail-wholesale and import-export trade, in the concentrated tourist-restaurant infrastructure.
• The land is socialized, as are the capitalist agricultural businesses.
• Private ownership and commercial activity are abolished in education, health-welfare, culture and sports, the mass media. They are organized exclusively as social services.
• The industrial and largest part of agricultural production are carried out with social ownership relations, Central Planning, workers’ control.
• Labour power ceases to be a commodity. The utilization of alien labour is outlawed.
• Central Planning integrates labour power, the means of production, raw and other industrial materials and resources in the organization of production, social and administrative services.
State productive units are created for the production and processing of agricultural products as raw materials or consumer products. Those who do not own land will work in the socialist agricultural and livestock units. The measure of the socialization of land excludes the possibility of land being concentrated, the change of its use and its commercialization.
Agricultural producer cooperatives will be promoted, which will have the right to utilize the socialized land as a means of production. The distribution of agricultural products through their concentration, storage, preservation and transport via the central state mechanism.
Central Planning will consciously outline the objective proportions of production and distribution, the aim of developing the productive forces in an all-sided way. It is the communist relation of production and distribution.
The synchronized capitalist crisis and the possibility of the crisis breaking out in countries that today are in the cycle of economic growth, the sharpening of the inter-imperialist competition and the danger of a new or new imperialist wars, the situation being experienced by the working class and popular strata, urgently pose the issue of the best possible preparation of the CPs in order to be equal to the complex tasks of the class struggle.
This can only be achieved with a revolutionary strategy and tactics and the KKE will contribute in this direction to the best of its abilities.