Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

“Initiative” of the Communist and Workers’ Parties of Europe

POST REPLY
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 03 Oct 2013, 11:17
Quote:
The “Initiative” of the Communist and Workers’ Parties of Europe was founded

The “Initiative” of the Communist and Workers’ Parties of Europe was founded

On the 1st of October 2013 in a meeting room of the EU Parliament in Brussels, at the initiative of the KKE, the founding meeting was held of the “Initiative of communist and workers’ parties in order to study and elaborate European issues and to coordinate their activity”.

The decision to reinforce of their cooperation, on the basis of a specific founding declaration, which describes the principles of the “Initiative”, was expressed by the following 30 communist and workers’ parties from EU countries and other European countries as well:

Party of Labour ofAustria
Communist Party of the Workers ofBelarus
Communist Party ofBohemiaandMoravia
New Communist Party ofBritain
Union of Communists inBulgaria
Party of Bulgarian Communists
Socialist Workers’ Party ofCroatia
Communist Party inDenmark
Pole of Communist Revival inFrance
Union of Revolutionary Communists ofFrance
Unified Communist Party ofGeorgia
Communist Party ofGreece
Hungarian Workers' Party
The Workers' Party ofIreland
Communists People’s Left-Communist Party of Italy
Socialist Party ofLatvia
Socialist People’s Front of Lithuania
Communist Party ofMacedonia
Communist Party ofMalta
People’s Resistance Moldova
Communist Party ofNorway
Communist Party ofPoland
Communist Workers' Party ofRussia
Communist Party ofSoviet Union
New Communist Party ofYugoslavia
Communist Party ofSlovakia
Communist Party of the Peoples ofSpain
Communist Party ofSweden
Communist Party ofTurkey
Union of Communists ofUkraine


More info: http://inter.kke.gr/en/articles/The-Ini ... s-founded/
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Bureaucrat
Post 05 Oct 2013, 19:29
Danish communist party. Did I miss something, or is this "Enhedslisten" (red/green alliance)
Soviet America is Free America!

Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 06 Oct 2013, 10:20
I believe this is one of the other parties that opposed the formation of Enhedslisten. http://www.kommunisterne.dk/

I don't know if they're very significant.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 15 Dec 2013, 11:48
There is a website for the Initiative now: http://initiative-cwpe.org/

A quick look at the little map and the participating parties indicates a lot. We see the role played by massive, important communist parties like the KKE, but also the fact that the Portuguese PCP is not there, that there are no parties from our corner of Europe (Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg), etc.

The principles of the Initiative we can all stand behind, but at the same time, given the parties that participate and the ones that don't, it's a somewhat narrow platform. To what extent does it work towards unity? Of course unity should not be based on the lowest common denominator, and the line of the opportunist "European Left" should be defeated on the ideological level. But is it tactical and constructive to form an "Initiative" now, with rules that necessarily include some principled communist parties, but to the exclusion of others? Time will tell.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 143
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jun 2013, 09:08
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 15 Dec 2013, 16:40
No 14 wrote:
There is a website for the Initiative now: http://initiative-cwpe.org/

A quick look at the little map and the participating parties indicates a lot. We see the role played by massive, important communist parties like the KKE, but also the fact that the Portuguese PCP is not there, that there are no parties from our corner of Europe (Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg), etc.

The principles of the Initiative we can all stand behind, but at the same time, given the parties that participate and the ones that don't, it's a somewhat narrow platform. To what extent does it work towards unity? Of course unity should not be based on the lowest common denominator, and the line of the opportunist "European Left" should be defeated on the ideological level. But is it tactical and constructive to form an "Initiative" now, with rules that necessarily include some principled communist parties, but to the exclusion of others? Time will tell.



In 1881, just two years before his death, the ailing Karl Marx received a letter from a young socialist, Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis, asking for his opinion about the call to rebuild the International Workingmen’s Association, the most advanced experiment in Left Unity up to that date. An unequivocal response.

Quote:
“It is my conviction that the critical juncture for a new International Workingmen’s Association has not yet arrived and for this reason I regard all workers’ congresses, particularly socialist congresses, in so far as they are not related to the immediate given conditions in this or that particular nation, as not merely useless but harmful. They will always fade away in innumerable stale generalised banalities.” When not explicitly tied to the concrete struggles of a real historical conjuncture, the question of Left Unity can be nothing other than the “statement of a phantom problem to which the only answer can be – the criticism of the question itself.” -


Pretty much sums up my feeling. Urging people to vote for the EU Superstate when only some 45% cared to put a X on their slip. I suppose some are eager to get their snouts in the trough. In Britain a mere 36% voted and many of those votes went to anti EU parties.

National sovereignty is vital. No country run from outside ever amounted to anything. Sovereignty has been one of the great dynamics of human development – if a country does not run its own affairs, those who control it prioritise their own interests, at the expense of the controlled country's interests. Nobody has a right to interfere in Britain's affairs, any more than we have a right to interfere in any other country's affairs. It is time for a referendum on the European Union. Nobody in Britain under the age of 56 has had a vote on membership of the EU or of its predecessor, the EEC. The Parliamentary parties have often promised a referendum but have always broken their promises, because they represent capitalism and capitalists are afraid to hear the views of the working class.
The world is riven by class — not race, gender, age or disability. There is only one human race, and any ideas that promote divisions between us do the work of capitalism.
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 15 Dec 2013, 18:45
Quote:
National sovereignty is vital. No country run from outside ever amounted to anything. Sovereignty has been one of the great dynamics of human development – if a country does not run its own affairs, those who control it prioritise their own interests, at the expense of the controlled country's interests. Nobody has a right to interfere in Britain's affairs, any more than we have a right to interfere in any other country's affairs. It is time for a referendum on the European Union. Nobody in Britain under the age of 56 has had a vote on membership of the EU or of its predecessor, the EEC. The Parliamentary parties have often promised a referendum but have always broken their promises, because they represent capitalism and capitalists are afraid to hear the views of the working class.


But does this not highlight why sovereignty is ultimately such a bullshit concept? If Britain were to leave the EU the workers of Britain would still be unable to exercise sovereign power. The British bourgeoisie would remain in power and run the country according to their interests. Sovereignty is simply expression of private property on a grand and territorial scale.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 15 Dec 2013, 19:00
dodger wrote:
[In 1881, just two years before his death, the ailing Karl Marx received a letter from a young socialist, Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis, asking for his opinion about the call to rebuild the International Workingmen’s Association, the most advanced experiment in Left Unity up to that date. An unequivocal response.


Pretty much sums up my feeling. Urging people to vote for the EU Superstate when only some 45% cared to put a X on their slip. I suppose some are eager to get their snouts in the trough. In Britain a mere 36% voted and many of those votes went to anti EU parties.

National sovereignty is vital. No country run from outside ever amounted to anything. Sovereignty has been one of the great dynamics of human development – if a country does not run its own affairs, those who control it prioritise their own interests, at the expense of the controlled country's interests. Nobody has a right to interfere in Britain's affairs, any more than we have a right to interfere in any other country's affairs. It is time for a referendum on the European Union. Nobody in Britain under the age of 56 has had a vote on membership of the EU or of its predecessor, the EEC. The Parliamentary parties have often promised a referendum but have always broken their promises, because they represent capitalism and capitalists are afraid to hear the views of the working class.


Well, I think that international meetings between communist and workers' parties are valuable, and I think that it can be useful to work in a more coordinated way, or to keep each other informed at the very least. However, at the same time, there are still loads of national peculiarities, as well as differences of opinions between communist and workers' parties on a wide range of issues. To ignore all this is to repeat all the mistakes of the Comintern.

So-called "Internationals" based around a very narrow dogma, whether Trotskyist, Maoist, or Hoxhaist, are not simply making this mistake, but they glory in it, they think it's a good thing to have a "centre" telling workers on the other side of the world what to think. Which is why they consistently get things wrong.

Not really related to the matter at hand, since nobody in this Initiative is proposing to support the EU (quite the contrary!), but I agree on the matter of national sovereignty. Saying this is enough to make some leftists froth at the mouth, and in some countries it's more important than in others. But in a country like, say, Britain, it's clearly an issue and it should not be left to the "Eurosceptic right".

What I wonder is, how to do this meaningfully? At the moment, in the Netherlands, the ruling liberal-conservative party is constantly talking about "repatriation of powers from Europe" at home, but in Brussels, they are happy to endorse the worst kinds of federalists. I bet it's much the same in Britain, what with Cameron's promise to hold a referendum, waaaay at the end of his second term, by which time the crown jewels will be sold off anyway. How to deal with that?
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 17 Dec 2013, 21:21
A bit more exposition:

Quote:
On the 15th International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties in Lisbon

Published in the newspaper “Rizospastis” on 15/12/2013

After the International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties (IMCWP) which was held on the 8,9,10 of November2013 inLisbon, hosted by the Portuguese Communist Party, we witness some activity and the representatives of various CPs are making an effort to analyze what took place there from their own ideological-political standpoint.

The KKE also takes part in this discussion with the aim of highlighting the issues that concern the communist movement, of informing the communists internationally about the real facts and the positions of the parties.

1. The KKE immediately after the counterrevolution demonstrated particular concern for the regroupment of the communist movement.

It contributed to the gathering of forces and to the carrying out of the International Meetings of Communist and Workers’ Parties, fighting against major difficulties and particularly against positions that rejected the discrete presence of the CPs and looked to merging with opportunist forces, traditional or new-mutated ones, in the name of the joint activity of the “left”.

Our party paid particular importance to highlighting common goals and to developing joint activity despite the serious ideological-political differences and attempted, with the contribution of other CPs as well, to establish the International Meetings which were held in Athens from 1998 until 2004 and later were hosted in other countries.

Our party demonstrates particular persistence for the unity of the communist movement. This is a difficult, complex problem, which can only be resolved through the creation of solid foundations which will be based on the Marxist-Leninist worldview, on the principles of the class struggle, on the revolutionary strategy. On this basis, the real communist character of the CPs can be strengthened, the class unity of the working class and its alliance with the popular strata can be acquired, and the concentration and preparation of working class popular forces can be achieved for the overthrow of capitalist barbarity, for socialism-communism.

It is obvious that the revolutionary unity of the communist movement has major demands and can not be achieved without a strategic axis, without the combining of revolutionary theory and practice which will pose as its daily task the preparation of the CPs themselves and of the working class in order to respond to the needs of the conflict against the exploitative capitalist system, capital and its political representatives and opportunism, which is a canker in the ranks of the communist movement.

The viewpoint that links the unity of the communist movement with the simplistic position “unity around what we agree on” impedes discussion and overlooks the need to elaborate a revolutionary strategy and the adjustment of the CPs to the major demands of the class struggle for the abolition of the exploitation of man by man.

It leaves them defenseless against the corrosive work of the bourgeois and opportunist forces which are trying to assimilate the CPs into parliamentarianism, to castrate them and make them a part of the bourgeois political system, with unprincipled collaborations, with participation in governments of bourgeois management which have a “left”-“progressive” label, with entrapment in the logic of class collaboration, with support for imperialist centres, as is happening e.g. with the CPs of the so-called European Left Party, as well as other CPs that are following the same path.

2. The KKE despite the difficulties has contributed to the issuing of joint statements at international and other meetings of the communist parties. However, our party has underlined that the compromise of issues of strategic importance and the quest for formulations which will mitigate the disagreements in the name of the agreement on a joint statement does not contribute to the correct objective information of the communists, the working class, the peoples.

It causes confusion, does not allow the understanding of the real situation and impedes the development of the thinking about the causes of the problems, the necessity of a single revolutionary strategy which will empower the discrete struggle of the communist movement for the interests of the working class, the popular strata, all over the world.

At the 15th International Meeting inLisbon it was not possible for a joint statement to be issued due to different approaches on very serious issues. Because views are being expressed that “muddy the waters” and distort facts, we want to refer to certain issues.

The KKE, even before the International Meeting, took a specific position on the first draft joint statement and argues that it was not a basis for discussion if there were not significant changes. It tabled a series of observations, proposals and other CPs did the same. Unfortunately, basic proposals of our party were not taken into account.

The observations of the KKE included, amongst other things, the following issues:

In relation to the concept of imperialism: the KKE treats this concept as it has been established by V.I. Lenin, as the final and highest stage of capitalism. Unfortunately in the draft Joint Statement this crucial issue was not expressed correctly and in certain sections there was room for the misinterpretation of this concept, which was limited in the text and treated merely as an aggressive foreign policy.

Cause and nature of the capitalist crisis: we are facing today a deep capitalist economic crisis of capital over-accumulation and over-production, the cause of which lies in the basic contradiction between capital and labour, rejecting characterizations such as “financial”, “structural” crisis that muddy the character of the capitalist crisis and its causes.

The issue of social alliances: the KKE supports a political line for the alliance of the working class with the other poor popular strata, such as the poor farmers, the poor urban and rural petty bourgeois strata. In no instance can it agree to alliances with sections of the bourgeois class which are labeled “antimonopoly strata”.

The stance towards the so-called “emerging” countries: the problems that these countries are facing today, where capitalist relations of production are predominant in their economic basis, are not “imported” from abroad, as the draft Joint Statement presented them, but are the result of the capitalist mode of production itself in these countries.

The same holds true regarding the developments inLatin America. The KKE carefully follows the developments and processes, we express our solidarity with the struggle of the communist parties and the peoples, but we criticize the political line that is being implemented in capitalist countries with a strong monopoly basis that play a particular role in the inter-imperialist competition and implement a strategy that serves the interests and the profitability of capital at the expense of the working class and popular strata which live in conditions of exploitation.

Reforms in the framework of capitalism: the KKE struggles in our country for the workers to have gains, like e.g. on the issue of fighting for an exclusively free public education system, healthcare, welfare, increases in salaries and pensions etc. However, we link this struggle of ours with the radical change of society, working class power and the socialization of the monopolies. It is damaging to sow illusions that in the framework of capitalism this exploitative system can be “corrected” with reforms.

The issue of inter-state capitalist unions: the EU is an inter-state capitalist union, reactionary due to its nature as a representative of the European monopolies and regarding its aggressiveness against the peoples and that the deepening of capitalist unification (integration) is not the only thing responsible for this. The same is also occurring in relation to other inter-state unions, which emerge on the terrain of capitalism in Asia,Eurasia, Latin America etc and are in the service of the large business groups and the workers must not choose imperialist and imperialist “centre”.

Contradictions between capitalist countries: the competition between “old” and new emerging capitalist powers is taking place over market shares, the control of natural resources, the transport routes, the pipelines etc. Each bourgeois class, based on its strength (economic, political, military) is a “predator”, larger or smaller, that exploits labour power, and in addition seeks to increase its role in international affairs.

So, we consider that the working class can not take the side of any bourgeois class, in contrast with various formulations which existed in the text of the draft Joint Statement.

Especially on the issue ofLatin America, the draft Joint Statement reached the point of considering that the bourgeois governments of strong capitalist powers, imperialist countries that appear amongst the G20, lend impetus … to the anti-imperialist struggle. It overlooks the fact that these governments manage the bourgeois state power in order to strengthen the monopolies which are dominant in their economies.

On the issue of revolution or reform: On this issue the communist and workers’ parties can give only one answer: revolution! Unfortunately, in the draft Joint Statement there was talk in several places of “developments in processes that build sovereignty and social progress-based alternatives” or about the “achievement of positions within the institutions” through which there will be a “change in the class content of power”.

The experience of the communist parties regarding the choices of managing capitalism is painful and the example of “Euro-communism” is well-known to all. Such positions foster confusion and illusions, beautify bourgeois power, disarm the labour and people’s movement. The experience from the coup inChile, this year marks the 40 years since it occurred, is characteristic and it is not permissible to support these positions.

The front against opportunism: It is necessary that the responsibilities of the opportunist forces must be stressed, which have inflicted a lot of damage on the communist movement and the struggle of the working class.

Political alliances with other forces: the alliance of the working class with the other popular strata is a crucial issue. The policy of alliances, the concentration and preparation of forces are determined by the strategic goal of overthrowing capitalist barbarity and can not be integrated into various management games at the top with social-democracy and opportunism.

On the “models” of socialism: it has been noted that behind the discussion about “rejecting models” there is the problem manifests itself of rejecting the scientific laws of the revolution and socialist construction, such as the necessity of working class power (the dictatorship of the proletariat), the socialization of the means of production, central planning. Historically in the international communist movement, the revision of our theory and the justification for the distancing from communist principles were hidden behind “national models” and the “variety of paths to socialism”. From this standpoint, our party can not agree with formulations that cause confusion and add grist to the mill of opportunist, social-democratic theories like the so-called “21st Century Socialism.”

3. In the “Working Group” (it has the responsibility of preparing the International Meetings), which met inLisbonwith the participation of a significant number of CPs, it was ascertained that the draft joint statement did not constitute a basis for discussion and the same was also repeated in the plenum of the CPs. An agreement was reached on a framework of joint actions for the next period so that the struggle can be developed regarding the sharpening popular problems and so that the common position of the CPs on a series of issues can be expressed.

The delegation of the KKE both in the “Working Group”, as well as in the plenum of the CPs, posed the positions of the party in a concrete and substantiated way regarding basic issues on which disagreements were expressed.

The delegation of the KKE, in its relevant intervention in the plenum of the CPs, noted the following amongst other things:

“The joint statement was burdened from the very beginning with very serious issues of strategic importance, regarding which there are well-known different approaches on the part of the KKE and other CPs. The text is permeated with the view that between capitalism and socialism there exists an intermediate socio-economic system and consequently an intermediate power, but this has no relationship with reality.

The text talks about anti-monopoly revolutionary changes on the terrain of capitalism. This is a utopia, a disorientation, and beautifies the exploitative system.

What does the “financialization” of the economy mean? This is a basic position of the bourgeois and opportunist analysis. It conceals the essence of the capitalist crisis. It refers to the so-called “casino-capitalism” and leads to the quest for a “healthy”, “productive” capitalism.

We support the Cuban revolution, we follow the developments, we express our solidarity.

We discuss with the CP of Vietnam, but we have a different view regarding the so-called “socialism with a capitalist market”. Socialism has concrete scientific laws and there is a high price to be paid for violating them.

We have discussed the issue ofChinabefore and we argue based on data that capitalist relations of production have become predominant there. In 2013, 400 Chinese capitalists increased their fortune by 150 billion dollars.

It is clear that we can not support bourgeois governments inLatin America, even if CPs participate in them or support them.Brazil, for example, is a strong imperialist country, there are very strong monopolies, with enormous profits on the one hand, and 55 million destitute people on the other.

The intervention of the KKE noted in conclusion that the “ draft joint statement provides a mistaken direction for the struggle, leads to assimilation into the system, impedes the process of adjusting the strategy of the communist movement to the needs of the class struggle for socialism.”

The discussion that took place at the International Meeting was rich and the experience can be utilized, provoke reflection, can lead to the drawing of conclusions and the KKE will contribute to this. But unfortunately in certain contributions, interviews etc of representatives of the CPs, after the meeting, arbitrary interpretations are being provided which give rise to questions.

For example, what does the position mean that the CPs which disagreed with the statement are ones without any responsibility in the leadership of the state or are small?

This a dangerous position of defining CPs based on bourgeois criteria. On what grounds is it negative for a CP not to be involved in the game of bourgeois management?

This is a duty and precondition for the independent struggle of the CPs, for the regroupment of the communist and labour-people’s movement.

What is a truly negative development and sets the communist movement back is the relationship with the social-democracy, the support for or participation in bourgeois governments that manage the power of the monopolies and exploit the peoples.

What is the goal of the discussion about “big” and “small” CPs on the basis of parliamentary criteria?

Why is a party which consistently struggles for the overthrow of capitalism, battles to establish a base in the labour movement with great sacrifices and has cadres who have been murdered by the mechanisms of the employers and bourgeois state, small? And why is a party considered to be “big” which absolutizes parliamentary activity and fosters illusions that the people’s problems can be solved, the people’s needs can be satisfied via the bourgeois parliaments?

The historical experience teaches that mass CPs which absolutized parliamentarianism and became detached from the revolutionary line ended up having their bonds with working class devalued and broken, and were led down the path of opportunist-liquidationist downward spiral, like the communist parties in France, Spain and Italy.

There exist CPs without parliamentary representation which are struggling in conditions of intense anti-communism, prioritizing the work-places facing thousands of difficulties and are trying to form revolutionary strategy-tactics. And there exist CPs that have parliamentary representation, but support the EU and its strategy, have renounced the revolutionary road along time ago, such as the parties in the leadership of the European Left Party (ELP).

Each party undertakes the responsibility for the position it takes.

The KKE argues that the problems of the communist movement can not be dealt with using aphorisms but through a substantial discussion on the controversial issues of strategic importance and with the aim of the revolutionary regroupment. The communist men and women all over the world have both a cause and duty to take part in this process.

Giorgos Marinos

Member of the PB of the CC of the KKE


http://inter.kke.gr/en/articles/On-the- ... in-Lisbon/
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 04 Apr 2014, 07:48
A critique:

Quote:
Issues of Relevance in the Ideological Struggle

Issues of Relevance in the Ideological Struggle, March 13, 2014 by Albano Nunes, Member of the Secretariat of the CC

Valuing the recent 15th International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties (IMCWP), which was held in Lisbon on November 2013, the statement adopted by the PCP Central Committee meeting of December 14 and 15 states:

«fully aware of the existence of inevitable differences of opinion, and even of serious disagreements, the PCP will continue committed to strengthen and ensure the unity and effectiveness in action of the World Communist and Revolutionary Movement, based on a frank and fraternal assessment of the common problems, and on the principles of equality, mutual respect, non-interference in internal affairs and mutual solidarity, and rejecting the different forms of opportunism, whether expressed as adaptation to the system or through dogmatic and sectarian expressions».

It is about the dense political and ideological content of this small paragraph of a PCP Central Committee statement that we consider it useful to make some considerations.

The PCP's analysis of the international situation and of the communist and revolutionary movement is contained in the resolutions of its Congresses, namely the 19th Congress, which was held in December 2012, as well as in the Message of Greetings by comrade Jerónimo de Sousa and in the PCP's statement to the 15th IMCWP (1).

What follows is merely a contribution towards the necessary clarification of the PCP's position regarding some issues that have recently assumed greater proportions, both as regards attitudes towards enshrined principles of relationship between Communist parties, and in relation to serious differences in the analysis of the international situation and on the strategy and tactics of Communist parties.

1. The issue of the struggle for socialism and all the associated issues regarding stages and paths of the revolutionary process, as well as the indispensable consideration of the concrete situations and of national specificities in the elaboration of the programme of the Communist Party, is surely one of most relevant questions on which there are, not merely legitimate differences of opinion, but also schematic simplifications and confusions. In historical terms, we are living in the epoch of the transition from capitalism to socialism, which was inaugurated by the October Revolution, almost one hundred years ago.

But in the short and medium-term time frames, we are living through times of counter-revolution and social regression. This situation embodies a contradiction which places Communist parties before serious challenges of a political and ideological nature, prominent among which is the need to combine the struggle for concrete and immediate goals, with the goal of socialism and communism, taking into account each country's concrete situation.

This is a dialectical (and therefore not a mechanical) liaison, which neither separates stages and tactical moments of the revolutionary struggle with unsurmountable barriers, nor confuses different goals, stages and phases of a single process of social transformation. This liaison is contrary, both to taking up purely defensive positions and leaving the prospect of any revolutionary advance to the distant future, thereby opening the way for reformist opportunism, as well as to the underestimation of immediate goals in the name of the final goal which is inscribed in the epoch of imperialism, that is, socialism. The masses of the people, that irreplaceable protagonist of any revolution worthy of that name, are not won over, or even mobilized, without a clear prospect for change and revolution.

But the masses cannot be won over, and real advances made on the path to the proletarian revolution, by ignoring or jumping over stages, underestimating immediate goals, simply agitating the ultimate goals (2). There is no "revolutionary" rhetoric that can replace the persistent and day-to-day work among the working class and the masses, building the Communist party, building the class trade unions and other forms of popular organization and unity, driving the mass struggle, promoting broad social alliances and their political expression, allying (we insist) the struggle for concrete and immediate demands with the popularization among the masses of the only alternative that can, in the final analysis, bring progress, social justice and peace: the power of the working class, the abolition of exploitation of man by man, socialism and communism.

2. The contradiction between the revolutionary possibilities of the historical epoch and the conjunctural situation which the PCP defines as a time of resistance and the accumulation of strength, becomes even clearer against the backdrop of the ever sharper basic contradictions of present-day capitalism: between capital and labour, between the development of the productive forces and the relations of production which shackle them, between the socialization of production and its private appropriation, between the potential to solve Humanity's problems which is created by scientific and technical progress and the fact that they are becoming more acute.

As we stated at the 19th PCP Congress, in world terms, never was the need for the revolutionary overcoming of capitalism so relevant and necessary, as is the need to build a new society without exploiters nor exploited people. However, if we consider that the material and objective prerequisites for the socialist revolution are ripe, and if with every passing day it becomes more obvious that imperialism's social basis of support is becoming narrower and that it is incapable of responding to the requirements of our time, it is equally evident that there is a relative backwardness in the subjective factor, that the revolutionary organization and awareness of the working masses is lagging behind, as is the Communist and revolutionary movement, that the institutions of production and reproduction of bourgeois ideology have a real impact. This does not mean that the path of diversified revolutionary processes, including socialist revolutions, is closed. The history of the social and national emancipation of the workers and peoples is full of about-turns, unexpected leaps forward and surprising achievements.

And even today, there are original processes of social transformation that are on the move and which, whatever the limitations, contradictions and uncertainties that surround them, must be valued, studied and defended from the onslaughts of imperialism and reaction. But the contradiction on a world level, between the maturing of objective conditions and the delays in subjective conditions remains.

And in the context of a very intense ideological struggle, it creates the breeding ground for opportunisms of an opposite nature. Both of the right and of the "left". Both of social-democratizing renounciation and adaptation to the existing state of affairs (a liquidationist trend which, after "euro-communism", had a new upsurge with the disappearance of the USSR and the defeats of socialism in Europe) or of leaps forward which proclaim the socialist revolution as an immediate goal of Communist parties, regardless of the conditions in which they operate.

Concrete expressions of this reality can be found, on the right, in the "European Left Party" (3) and some of its member parties, and on "the left", in the positions of some Communist parties which before, during and already after the 15th International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, have been marked by dogmatism and sectarianism and by a scholastic and petrified view of Marxism-Leninism (4).

3. The international context in which revolutionary forces are acting is marked by two fundamental facts. One is socialism's defeats at the end of the 20th century, the brutal ensuing change in the balance of forces, the weakening of revolutionary forces which resulted in the ensuing counter-attack by imperialism to recoup the positions which it had lost throughout the 20th century, in particular after the defeat in World War II of Nazi-fascism, the most reactionary and terrorist sector of capital.

At the same time, there is the world-wide impact of the present stage of the crisis of capitalism, with the violent and multi-pronged onslaught by big capital – increasingly financialized, speculative, rentier and parasitic, a fact which is inseparable from the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. In its quest for high rates of profit, big capital seeks to impose upon the workers and the peoples a social regression of historic proportions. It is with this goal that we see an ever more widespread brutal repression of popular struggles, a growth in racist and extreme right-wing forces and in the wars of aggression against peoples and sovereign countries.

With the disappearance of the powerful counter-weight represented by the world socialist system, the world has become more dangerously exposed to the exploitative, oppressive and aggressive nature of capitalism, to the dynamics of its irreconcilable contradictions, to the consequences of the crises of over-production and over-accumulation of capital, as is the case of the current crisis that ecloded in 2008 in the USA with the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy.

However, as the Political Resolution of the 19th PCP Congress states, «the web of contradictions in which the capitalist system is enmeshed is so dense that, in the context of an upsurge of the struggle of the workers and peoples, great dangers of civilizational regression, and even for the very existence of Humankind, co-exist with a great potential for progressive and even revolutionary transformation.

This is a reality which the Communists, aware of the fact that capitalism will never hand over power of its own free will, must keep in mind in their day-to-day action, always linking the struggle against big capital's offensive and for concrete and immediate goals with the struggle for profound transformations of an anti-monopolist nature and for a socialist society». It is evident that materializing the potential for an about-turn towards a progressive and revolutionary course depends essentially on the roots which the revolutionary vanguard can grow among the masses, and from the correspondence between its program and political line, and the concrete society in which it operates. Imperialist globalisation is a reality that increasingly influences the situations in the various countries. But it does not make them uniform.

On the contrary, they are extraordinarily diverse, as diverse are the immediate tasks and the programmatic goals which confront each Communist Party, even taking into account that in the epoch of imperialism, any process of social transformation, any revolutionary process, if it is to achieve its goals, must place socialism on the horizon.

This was the case with the Portuguese Democratic and National Revolution – which took the path towards socialism, that was inscribed as a goal in the 1976 Constitution of the Republic. This is also the case with the Advanced Democracy that is inscribed in the PCP's current program and which we consider an integral and inseparable part of the struggle for socialism in Portugal. It is true that general laws of the revolutionary process exist – namely those related to that role of the working class and the masses of the people, the Party, political power, and the property of the means of production. But life has also confirmed that the paths for social transformation and revolution are increasingly varied.

There is nothing more negative for a Communist Party, for a political force that claims to be a revolutionary vanguard, than to seek to carry out the struggle with timeless formulas, that would be valid under all circumstances; than to seek to respond to the pressing problems of the class struggle with clichés and preconceived solutions that are out of tune with reality; than to copy/export solutions that may be valid in a given country, but may not correspond to the concrete situation that exists in another country; than to lose sight of the fact that the revolution is a living and creative social process and that the concrete analysis of concrete situations is the living essence of Marxism-Leninism. The existence of general laws of the revolutionary process does not only not stand in contradiction with the existence of national specificities, as it presupposes a dialectical relation which a Marxist-Leninist can in no way ignore.

The process of the Portuguese Revolution, in which the PCP as the "vanguard of the working class and of all workers" played (and plays) an irreplaceable role, enshrines, in this respect, valuable lessons. Lessons that confirm the need to not underestimate, and much less deny, the importance of the national issue in the process of social transformation, as well as its correlation with the class issue. In the Portuguese case, in which there was the original circumstance of Portugal being at the same time a colonizing and a colonised country, this issue took on particular importance, and the anti-fascist revolution also acquired a national character by placing among its key goals the immediate recognition of the right of the peoples of the colonies to their independence, as well as the liberation of Portugal from imperialism.

And today, faced with the very serious situation of dependence and foreign interference, in which the participation in the European process of capitalist integration is a key component, the PCP fights for a patriotic and left-wing alternative which, opening the road to an Advanced Democracy, may defend and ensure national independence and may break with the serious constraints upon national sovereignty which, as the facts are proving, has a profound class content.

The struggle of the workers and the peoples in defense of national sovereignty is a fundamental front in the struggle against imperialism, which is in the interests of all anti-monopoly classes and strata, and in which the working class is in the front ranks. It is incomprehensible that there are parties that deny its importance, as well as the importance of strengthening, in association with the Communist movement, the world-wide anti-imperialist front. In the PCP's Communist identity, patriotism and internationalism are indissociable.

4. Capitalism has confirmed and confirms, even in a context of deepening structural crisis, capacities for resistance and recovery that had been wrongly considered to be exhausted. This became particularly evident in the early nineties of the last century, with the bitter defeats of socialism. But in the PCP's analysis, which is firmly anchored in the theory of scientific socialism, in dialectical and historical materialism, that fact has never challenged the characterization of the historic epoch in which we are living, as the epoch of the transition from capitalism to socialism. The PCP's 13th (Extraordinary) Congress of May 1990 was, in this respect, unequivocal.

If it is true that, in global, world-wide, terms, we are still living in times of a revolutionary ebb, of resistance and the accumulation of strength, the reality is that the class struggle - that creative sculptor of History - did not stop, nor could it stop anywhere. It only took on new configurations and became violently more acute in recent years.

Everywhere, under very diverse forms, resistance is growing to the ever greater exploitation of wage labour, to the revanchist destruction of rights that had been won through the workers' and peoples' struggle. Big struggles, general strikes, mass demonstrations have, and continue to, take place in the more developed capitalist countries and in the periphery of the capitalist system. The peoples that are subjected to imperialism's offensive of exploitation and recolonization resist.

Countries, such as Cuba, persist in the goal of building socialist societies. In Latin America, there are ongoing processes of sovereignty and social progress which are a source of hope, some of them with revolutionary characteristics. Within the framework of capitalism's law of unequal development, with the relative decline of the USA and other great powers and the emergence of important regional powers, there is a massive process of realignment of forces which is re-drawing the world's economic and political map, creating new problems, contradictions and opportunities which challenge the boldness and creativity of the revolutionary forces, as well as their internationalist cooperation.

Confronted with such a complex, unstable and uncertain global situation, and with its diversified regional and national expressions, it is only natural for differences of viewpoints and assessments, differences of opinion and even disagreements on important issues of revolutionary strategy and tactics, to arise within the communist movement and in the anti-imperialist camp, even regarding relevant issues in the history of the world communist and revolutionary movement. This is all the more natural as the Communist and revolutionary parties have diversified trajectories, experiences and social rooting, they struggle in diverse conditions and they are in different stages of the struggle for socialism, having to confront different immediate tasks.

In the PCP's opinion – and this is a substantial disagreement with Parties that seek to create structured, and politically and ideologically homogenized, forms of cooperation – differences of opinion and disagreements between Communist parties should not prevent their cooperation in the struggle against the common enemy. Even if, momentarily, the leadership of this or that Party challenges characteristics that we consider fundamental in a Communist Party (5), this should not prevent common or convergent action in favour of the emancipation of the workers and the peoples. The PCP has its own positions, which it states with total frankness and which it firmly defends in the face of its critics and detractors.

But in the same way as it never accepted, nor accepts, lessons and impositions from anyone, it equally does not seek to impose them upon others. On the contrary, it respects and seeks to understand the positions of others and to take into account, in its own assessment, the assessment of other Parties. And it does not forget the valuable teaching of Álvaro Cunhal, according to which there are no problems which Communist Parties cannot overcome through «dialogue, friendly debate and the quest for common solutions» (6), respecting the principles of equality, mutual respect, non-interference in internal affairs, reciprocal solidarity, principles which have been forged by the experience of the world Communist movement. This is a vital issue for the role of Communist parties and for the Communist ideal in the world.

More than differences of opinion and disagreements, it is the breach of these principles, the public criticism and polemics for which some Parties have unfortunately already opted, it is revivalist attempts to create a "leading centre"or to adopt the line of this or that Party, which is considered the "guide" or "reference", that can endanger the strengthening of the Communist movement and cause serious harm to its unity. The times of centralization and discipline, which were necessary to break with the opportunism of the II International and to forge Leninist revolutionary parties, as was the case with the Communist International, have passed. The internationalist cooperation between Communist Parties, having at its core class solidarity, proletarian internationalism, will be all the stronger, the more rooted they are among the masses and the greater the capacity of each Party to autonomously define its revolutionary line.

5. The Portuguese Revolution was an unfinished revolution, but that does not make it less important in the Portuguese people's long road to liberation (7), nor less valuable as a legacy of experiences and lessons for the world Communist and revolutionary movement. The PCP is proud of its theoretical and practical contribution for the liberation of Portugal from almost half a century of fascist dictatorship. It is proud of its Communist identity. It is proud of its programme for the anti-fascist revolution, which life confirmed to a rare extent, with the liquidation of State monopoly capitalsim and with the major achievements such as the nationalizations, workers' control, the agrarian reform, democratic local government. It is proud of the liberating impact of the April Revolution. The PCP knows that the Portuguese revolution, with its profound traits of originality and revolutionary creativity, confirms central theses of Marxism-Leninism, namely regarding the central issue of the State (8).

But obviously, the PCP not only does not consider that our experience and the experience of the Portuguese Revolution can be taken as a blueprint of universal validity, as it warns – as Lenin himself did in relation to the October Revolution – against any mechanical copying of solutions. There are not, and there cannot be, "models" for revolutions. The Portuguese revolution, like all other genuine revolutions, emerged from the concrete reality and contradictions of Portuguese society and from the concrete alignment of class forces in Portugal, an alignment that was shaped by the role of the working class and of its Party and the creativity of the masses of the people in movement, in the context of that decisive and original alliance which was the People-MFA alliance.

To the extent that, despite the absence of a revolutionary power, it managed to impose profound social and economic transformations which paved the way for socialism in Portugal. The Portuguese Communists have never, and never will, use what they consider to be even the most solidly acquired revolutionary legacy of their Party to preach lessons to whomever.

Even more so, because unfortunately, in the experience of the world Communist and revolutionary movement, there is no shortage of dramatic negative examples of breaches to the well-known Marxist precept that «revolutions can be neither copied, nor exported». Nor do they emerge from manuals, as is they were archetypes, or an Idea to which reality must conform. This mistake, which is often made by Parties that seek in this way to find quick solutions for problems confronting them, is precisely the inverse of Marxism-Leninism, of which some claim to be the most faithful interpreters.

A patriotic and internationalist Party, a Party with the experience of 93 years of struggle and with the historical experience of the Communists and revolutionaries from all over the world, the PCP will continue committed to ensure a stronger, more united and effective world Communist and revolutionary movement, seeking to contribute towards more profound cooperation and solidarity in its midst which, respecting each Party's independence and history and focused on unity in action, values that which unites the forces that oppose Capital and imperialism's onslaught. It is this which the masses expect from Communists.

(1) See the dossier on the 15th International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, published in issue 328 of «O Militante», of January 2014. (2) In defense of the Party's programmatic line and in fighting against different forms of right-wing and "left" opportunism, two works by Álvaro Cunhal deserve to be highlighted: «Revolutionary action, capitulation and adventure» and «Petty-bourgeois radicalism with a socialist facade».

(3) The PCP is not a member, nor does it have relations with, the European Left Party. In the Political resolution of the 19th PCP Congress it is stated: «the reasons that led the PCP to not join the European Left Party remain valid. Reality has confirmed the warnings made by the Portuguese Communists that a structure of a supranational and reformist nature, with the characteristics of the ELP, would not only not contribute towards the unity and cooperation of Communist and progressive forces in Europe, as it would introduce new factors of division, separation and misunderstanding which would render more difficult any advances in the cooperation and solidarity among Communist and left forces in Europe, and which would impact also in other spaces of cooperation, namely the European United Left/Nordic Green Left Group in the European Parliament». In the meantime, the PCP has relations of friendship with Parties that are in the ELP as full members or as observers.

(4) «The PCP has Marxism-Leninism as its theoretical basis: a materialist and dialectical view of the world, a scientific tool to analyze reality and a guide for action which is being constantly enriched and under renewal, giving answers to new phenomenal situations, processes and trends of development. In articulation with events and with the incessant progress of knowledge, this view of the world is necessarily creative and, for this reason, contrary to any dogmatization as well as to the opportunistic revision of its fundamental principles and concepts» (PCP Constitution, article 2).

(5) In the PCP's assessment, fundamental characteristics of the Communist identity are its class nature, the theoretical basis of Marxism-Leninism, the project of a socialist society, inner-Party democracy based on democratic centralism, a mass line, patriotism and internationalism.

(6) «There are different points of view and even more or less serious disagreements between Communist Parties. In order to overcome them, absolutely necessary are dialogue, a friendly debate, the quest for common solutions. Through this path, we think that there are, among Communists, no problems without solutions» (Álvaro Cunhal, press conference in Beijing, on December 10, 1986).

(7) «The April Revolution's main values have grown deep roots in Portuguese society, and are projected as objective realities, requirements, experiences and aspirations into Portugal's democratic future.
The advanced democracy proposed by the PCP to the Portuguese people is a historical follow-up to
the programme for the democratic and national revolution drawn up and adopted in 1965, and to the
April revolution's ideals, victories and achievements, which are also of historic value. The advanced
democracy that the PCP proposes, projects, consolidates and develops the April values into Portugal's future.» (PCP Programme).

(8) The Portuguese Revolution confirmed the issue of the State as a central issue in any revolution. One of its main shortcomings was the fact that it never managed to set up a democratic State. Despite profoundly hit, the counter-revolutionary forces always managed to retain strong positions within the State apparatus and are today committed to a new revision of the Constitution, in order to place it entirely at the service of the ruling classes.


http://mltoday.com/issues-of-relevance- ... ruggle?utm
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron