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

KKE: The unity of the international communist movement...

POST REPLY
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 13 Apr 2014, 21:51
Quote:
The unity of the international communist movement is what is required and it is not a given

Giorgos Toussas, member of the CC and MEP of the KKE, participated in an internationalist event of the CP of Italy in Rome on Saturday 5th of April and noted the following in his speech:

“Dear comrades,

We would like to thank you for inviting us to the event for the presentation of the “International Communist Review” (ICR) in Rome.

The ICR emerged in a period when the international communist movement finds itself in a state of retreat, in the period that followed the victory of the counterrevolution in the USSR and the countries of Eastern and Central Europe. It emerged in a period when the communist movement faces new questions regarding the development of the contemporary class struggle.

You may know that the KKE has made many efforts over the past 20 years and it has dealt systematically with the issue of the best possible coordination and the as effective as possible joint activity of the communist movement. A result of this effort was the establishment of the International Meetings of Communist and Workers’ Parties which were embraced and supported by dozens of parties. In our region we also contributed to the meetings of Balkan CPs, to the meetings of the CPs of the Eastern Mediterranean as well as to the European Communist Meetings and the thematic meetings of CPs. We have developed close bilateral relations with dozens of Communist Parties. Five months ago, 28 communist and workers’ parties of Europe founded, upon the invitation of the KKE, the “Initiative of Communist and Workers’ Parties of Europe”, a new form of regional cooperation of the communist parties.

In our last congress that took place in 2013 our party assessed that the situation in the international communist movement is characterized by an ideological-political and organizational crisis. We believe that this assessment remains valid. This weakness is expressed in conditions of the world capitalist crisis, of the sharpening of the inter-imperialist contradictions that manifest themselves with wars and interventions but also with serious processes within the imperialist unions such as the EU. In this framework we might see unprecedented developments which we haven’t seen over the last 50 years, developments which will be accompanied by a generalized war against the workers’ rights and achievements.

This situation creates increased duties for the communist parties. Even more so, as in a series of regions the forces of opportunism proceed to attack the history, the traditions and the principles of the international communist movement.

The so called European Left Party (ELP) has been founded in Europe with the participation of certain CPs, above all of those which in the past followed the so-called current of eurocommunism. Objectively, the presence of the ELP constitutes, irrespective of subjective choices and declarations, the acceptance of the bourgeois legitimacy, the negation of the theory of scientific socialism, of the communist traditions and the experience of the socialist revolutions in the 20th century. The ELP is promoting the assimilation of the labour movement into the structures of the European Union while at the same time it seeks the extension of its activity through the various networks in the Middle East, in Africa, in the former USSR and in Latin America.

The so-called logic of “stages” towards socialism is still causing a great damage. This view is linked to the participation of the CPs in bourgeois governments on the terrain of capitalist society. Thus, the communist movement is providing a life jacket to capitalism and the bourgeois system, and becomes an appendage of social democracy in the name of the “unity of the left”. This view which treats socialism as a chimera, as something on the horizon that will always exist but will always be out of reach, is trapping the struggle of the working class within the system. As a result, the working class is struggling for the correction and not for the overthrow of the system. Furthermore, it criticizes the KKE and the other parties that promote the timeliness and necessity of socialism as sectarian despite the fact that in our country thousands of working people, unemployed people, farmers, self employed are rallying around the revolutionary line of the KKE and on this basis they are taking to the streets, struggling against the anti-people measures, strengthening their unity against the monopolies and capitalism, contributing to the maturation of the subjective factor for the prevention of the anti-people measures and the overthrow of the capitalist barbarity.

Dear comrades,

The issue of the “stages”, actually the issue of the character of the impending revolution, is linked to the analysis of reality that each party makes. The KKE remains faithful to the Leninist perception about imperialism; it clearly opposes all imperialist unions, as they are built with the materials of the monopolies, of capitalist profit and inter-imperialist competition.

Today several communist parties are expressing their loyalty to Marxism-Leninism but, unfortunately, they have abandoned its content when dealing with issues like imperialism, interstate unions, the so called “emerging powers”, the stance towards social democracy, the centre-left, opportunism, the stance regarding the possibility of utilizing all forms of struggle in order to successfully confront capitalist violence, the imperialist intervention. They sow parliamentary illusions, they reject the socialism which we knew. They promote mistaken views about “models” of socialism, something that leads to the negation of the scientific laws of the socialist revolution and construction.

As you know, our party has taken a position on these issues and other issues as well, which we can not present in the framework of this speech.

Our party assesses that it is necessary to form a discrete global pole of the communist movement, a discrete form of cooperation and coordination at international and regional level that goes beyond the forms which have been achieved so far with the International Meetings of Communist and Workers’ Parties.

In this direction, we contributed to the decision to establish the “International Communist Review”. According to the “Declaration of the Istanbul” the ICR is based on the common view, which has been achieved to one extent or another, regarding the defense of the principles of Marxism-Leninism, proletarian internationalism, the necessity of the socialist revolution and the construction of the socialist society.

This journal is not merely an informative journal or a journal that serves the exchange of views. Besides, this goal is served by other publications. As is mentioned in the Declaration of Istanbul it is a journal that develops dialogue and reflection on a specific given ideological-political basis. It is a launching pad:

For the defence and the scientific underpinning of the objective necessity for the existence of the communist party, of the party of a new type i.e. the Leninist principles for its foundation and operation against the views that promote its assimilation and diffusion into wider opportunist formations in the name of the “unity of the left”.

To highlight the vanguard leading role of the working class in the class struggle for the overthrow of capitalism, for social progress, socialism, against the opportunist unscientific practice that substitutes the working class with a patchwork of petty bourgeois forces presented as the new revolutionary subject.

To expose imperialist barbarity and contribute to the development of the struggle against the imperialist unions such as NATO, EU, IMF, OSCE etc.

To resolutely defend the history of the communist movement and to carry out the further critical study of the historical experience that will reinforce the constant struggle of the communist parties against the slanderous, anti-communist attack of the capitalist forces, the revisionists of history.

So , we can say that a path has been created, even if we are still at the beginning of it. There are very serious difficulties, but the basic issue is for the importance of this effort to be more deeply understood as well as the demands that arise from this achievement, which must be consolidated and stabilized.

Dear comrades,

4 issues of the ICR have been published up until now and the 5th is being prepared. The process which is followed, which provides for the collective discussion of the contributions of our representatives in the Editorial Board makes it possible for collective comradely discussion to be developed in the meetings and for the articles of the journal to be formed through a joint effort. Such a discussion could not take place and have positive results in the International Meetings, as there are parties that participate in them that have openly gone down the road of their ideological and political mutation and their distancing from the Marxist-Leninist worldview.

No party, including of course the KKE, can impose its opinion, assessments on other CPs.

Nevertheless, we consider it crucial that the differing approaches on various issues not be concealed, but that there should be a constructive effort to overcome them, always of course in line with the principles of our worldview. The common strategic view is not a given. It must be formed. Preconditions for the development of a common strategic view are not formed through concealing but through revealing the disagreements and at the same time achieving the maximum possible level of political agreement on the basis of Marxism-Leninism, the struggle against imperialism and opportunism.

The unity of the international communist movement is what is required and it is not a given. When we say unity, we do not mean the existence of formal relations between the CPs, the concealment of differences or the submission to schema of a revisionist or opportunist character in the name of unity. Consequently, despite the important steps that have been taken in the last 20 or so years regarding the coordination of action, issues of expressing solidarity by the communist and workers’ parties, the problem of the unity of the international communist movement remains, as this has its precondition above all the formation of a joint strategic view, the acquisition of ideological-political unity. Such unity can only exist in the direction of overcoming the crisis in the international communist movement.

The creation of the ICR operates in the direction of overcoming the crisis. The messages which we have received both from inside our country, as well as from abroad from other CPs and communists, are encouraging for the ICR. Today it is published in 7 languages (English, Spanish, Russian, French, Greek, Portuguese and Italian). We hope that it will appear soon in German and Turkish.

Of course, there are issues, as the parties that participate in the ICR maintain different assessments, we are bound by programmatic or other documents and there are difficulties sometimes. Also there are other issues which one party might have studied better or less well. In brief, there is the phenomenon of the different level of theoretical study on various issues, of the different experience on various issues that the one or the other party may have, which participate in the ICR through their theoretical journals. This is logical and to an extent does not threaten the continuation of the ICR.

In any case we are optimistic: The project for the emergence of a “communist pole” will succeed one way or another! Because it is necessary for the international communist movement to chart a common revolutionary strategy!

With these thoughts we send you warm comradely greetings from Greece, where the communists will wage a tough triple electoral battle in May; the municipal, regional and EU Parliamentary elections. The political proposal of the KKE requires a robust labour movement, which will play the leading role in the construction of the people’s alliance. Inside this alliance the working class, the poor farmers, the self-employed, the young men and women of the popular families and pensioners will unite their forces against the monopolies, capitalism, in order to emerge as a force for the overthrow. The political proposal of the KKE provides for the socialization of the means of production, the central planning of the economy, the disengagement of our country from the EU and NATO, with working class-people’s power. The strengthening of the KKE is at the heart of this effort, in the trade unions and the other organizations of the mass movement, in the municipalities and regional authorities, in the EU Parliament and the Parliament.”


http://inter.kke.gr/en/articles/The-uni ... t-a-given/

Editions of International Communist Review: http://www.iccr.gr/
Soviet cogitations: 11
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Mar 2014, 21:34
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 18 Apr 2014, 03:22
Bunch of hypocrites. If the KKE had supported SYRIZA in the last Greek elections, they could have helped form the most radical left-wing government in Europe and cushioned the suffering of the Greek working-class in the face of EU-imposed austerity. Instead they are still mouthing the same platitudes from the sidelines.
Soviet cogitations: 987
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Apr 2007, 18:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 18 Apr 2014, 08:32
^They're talking about the unity of the international (!) communist (!) movement. Syriza is neither international, nor communist. Also yeah, great idea, joining a bourgeois government so you get to shoot at the workers you're supposed to represent. You should read Lenin's "Left-wing communism".
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 18 Apr 2014, 08:41
Communist parties have been supporting left-wing governments in Europe for ages, like in Italy less than a decade ago. What was the net result of that? They backed the war in Afghanistan, then the coalition fell and Berlusconi returned to govern for three more years, followed by the most forceful EU austerity, and the communists disappeared from parliament completely, because nobody could tell the difference with the social-democrats any more. Strangely enough, the KKE don't want to share this fate. Whatever else you may think of that, I don't see how it is hypocritical. They are, in fact, consistent more than anything.

At least of all the anti-KKE figures on the left, you are honest enough to say that a hypothetical participation in government by them would only "cushion" the suffering caused by "EU-imposed austerity". Most people who attack the KKE pretend that SYRIZA still offers some kind of hope for socialism. But if not, then why should a communist party take political responsibility for the execution of attacks on the living standards of the people? Why should they, and the working-class movement that they represent, take responsibility for bailing out the capitalists from a crisis caused by themselves, not by the workers? Why should they tell the militant trade union front that they represent: "Please don't go on strike, we're in government now, so that would be very unsporting. Please keep working hard, take the cuts, and leave it up to our cabinet ministers to solve the crisis for you"?

To this, there is no answer that does not involve the basest class collaborationism, and the erasure of the very reason for a communist party to exist, as happened in other countries. Surely they can be excused for not wanting to follow this dead-end road. We already know that this road leads into the swamp, but some leftists actually say: "Well, we still need to travel that road the full length, just for the experience of it." That would certainly be a dream scenario for Golden Dawn, to be able to court the unemployed workers betrayed by the communists.

It doesn't matter anyway, because SYRIZA has never been the biggest party and SYRIZA-KKE has never been a parliamentary majority so far. We can engage in what-ifs forever, but there it is. Of course SYRIZA would have been the biggest if the KKE had given up its existence and program and merged into them unconditionally, but that would have been an even worse betrayal for obvious reasons. Even if communists wanted to do this, they should never willingly give up their freedom to agitate. Anyway, SYRIZA now seems to prefer rightist potential coalition partners like the eurosceptic Independent Greeks, who campaign for a "national awakening" against the evil immigrants and Germans. That is far more suitable for the direction that SYRIZA is headed in.
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2014, 00:36
Komsomol
Post 18 Apr 2014, 14:59
No 14 wrote:
Communist parties have been supporting left-wing governments in Europe for ages, like in Italy less than a decade ago. What was the net result of that? They backed the war in Afghanistan, then the coalition fell and Berlusconi returned to govern for three more years, followed by the most forceful EU austerity, and the communists disappeared from parliament completely, because nobody could tell the difference with the social-democrats any more. Strangely enough, the KKE don't want to share this fate. Whatever else you may think of that, I don't see how it is hypocritical. They are, in fact, consistent more than anything.

At least of all the anti-KKE figures on the left, you are honest enough to say that a hypothetical participation in government by them would only "cushion" the suffering caused by "EU-imposed austerity". Most people who attack the KKE pretend that SYRIZA still offers some kind of hope for socialism. But if not, then why should a communist party take political responsibility for the execution of attacks on the living standards of the people? Why should they, and the working-class movement that they represent, take responsibility for bailing out the capitalists from a crisis caused by themselves, not by the workers? Why should they tell the militant trade union front that they represent: "Please don't go on strike, we're in government now, so that would be very unsporting. Please keep working hard, take the cuts, and leave it up to our cabinet ministers to solve the crisis for you"?

To this, there is no answer that does not involve the basest class collaborationism, and the erasure of the very reason for a communist party to exist, as happened in other countries. Surely they can be excused for not wanting to follow this dead-end road. We already know that this road leads into the swamp, but some leftists actually say: "Well, we still need to travel that road the full length, just for the experience of it." That would certainly be a dream scenario for Golden Dawn, to be able to court the unemployed workers betrayed by the communists.

It doesn't matter anyway, because SYRIZA has never been the biggest party and SYRIZA-KKE has never been a parliamentary majority so far. We can engage in what-ifs forever, but there it is. Of course SYRIZA would have been the biggest if the KKE had given up its existence and program and merged into them unconditionally, but that would have been an even worse betrayal for obvious reasons. Even if communists wanted to do this, they should never willingly give up their freedom to agitate. Anyway, SYRIZA now seems to prefer rightist potential coalition partners like the eurosceptic Independent Greeks, who campaign for a "national awakening" against the evil immigrants and Germans. That is far more suitable for the direction that SYRIZA is headed in.


You can still stir the shite within national government.

It just means you refuse to back austerity legislation and consistently act as a thorn in the side of the reformists, which will make you visible and win you votes. It's not about being "nice" with SYRIZA it's about entering government and showing to the working class the bankruptcy of the reformists, eg what Lenin advocated in Left-Wing Communism for the case of Britain

I support the KKE probably more than any Party in Europe yet its position on this is still ultraleft.
Soviet cogitations: 11
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Mar 2014, 21:34
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 18 Apr 2014, 16:23
No 14 wrote:
why should a communist party take political responsibility for the execution of attacks on the living standards of the people? Why should they, and the working-class movement that they represent, take responsibility for bailing out the capitalists from a crisis caused by themselves, not by the workers?
It doesn't matter anyway, because SYRIZA has never been the biggest party and SYRIZA-KKE has never been a parliamentary majority so far. We can engage in what-ifs forever, but there it is. Of course SYRIZA would have been the biggest if the KKE had given up its existence and program and merged into them unconditionally, but that would have been an even worse betrayal for obvious reasons. Even if communists wanted to do this, they should never willingly give up their freedom to agitate.


1) Because if you are sharing power you can prevent those attacks on living standards,perhaps ? And SYRIZA made it clear at the time,IIRC, that they wanted entirely new, non-punitive Troika terms.

2) My understanding is if the KKE had freed up their 5-7% of the vote, it would have constituted a majority for a SYRIZA-KKE coalition and they would have had a parliamentary majority. You realise the KKE's intransigence cost them support amongst their working-class core the second time around,right ? Where do you think those workers shifted their allegiance to?

The reason I refer to KKE as hypocritical is that the excerpt you reproduced has an overall tone of "solidarity" but when the time came to show it, the KKE remained in the corner like a dour, bitter old man while the younger ones were trying to build something new. Were they hoping that giving Golden Dawn and their bourgeois paymasters free reign was going to spark "the revolution" ?
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 18 Apr 2014, 19:07
Well, Lenin did write in 1920 that the British communists should support Labour like a rope supports a hanging man, but I don't think the circumstances are the same. Labour at the time played an entirely different role compared to SYRIZA a century later. Labour had a clear working-class character, arising from the trade unions, but under reformist leadership, while the communists were divided and had no parliamentary representation (nor did they want to, out of revolutionary purity). They posed no alternative, whereas the KKE does (whether voters accept it is a different discussion). What about SYRIZA? It probably has a lot of working-class voters and members, but what are they to the party? Just individual citizens.

In any case, I don't think the KKE repeats the left errors of the British communists that Lenin argued against at the time. They are certainly not impervious to left errors, but theirs is not the leftism of Pankhurst's "pure doctrine", refusal to participate in parliament, and non-compromise that Lenin railed against.

I don't see what they could still do within government in terms of agitation. A coalition government where one of the two parties refuses to support the core economic policies? That would be so short-lived that it would not even be worth it to "expose" SYRIZA. Of course participating in government can help against attacks on living standards, but then the communists might as well enter coalitions with the old social-democracy, with the conservatives, etc. But I don't think it's the role of the communists to ameliorate the effects of the government of the day.

I don't think a KKE-SYRIZA coalition would have been a majority in either of the two elections in 2012, but correct me if I'm wrong. For instance, going on this:

Quote:
On the other side, the anti-memorandum camp of the Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA) which came second and the ND splinter Independent Greeks were not only deeply divided along the left-right dimension but the refusal of the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) to enter any coalition talks and the exclusion of the Nazi sympathizers of Golden Dawn meant that, even with the support of the Democratic Left, the anti-memorandum bloc would command only 104 seats. These were not enough even for a minority government of 120 seats as stipulated by the Constitution. Under these circumstances, a follow-up election was scheduled for June 17.


http://themonkeycage.org/2012/06/19/201 ... on-report/

Of course we can entertain counterfactuals of a combined list getting the largest share of the vote, and thereby the 50-seat bonus that the largest party gets. But if I understand the Greek system correctly, only unitary parties are eligible for that. That's why SYRIZA stopped being a coalition and turned into a unitary party, if I understand it correctly. So the communists might even have to give up their (formal) existence in such a scenario. Anyway, such a combination would still have to find other coalition partners to further deradicalise things. So whatever else, this idea that there would have been some kind of far-left government "if only the KKE blahblahblah" doesn't seem to hold up.

It's true that in the second election the KKE got a bad result, but I don't agree that this is just because of their stance on SYRIZA. What happened is that after the first election, no government could be formed. So what you get is a very strong tendency towards two-partyism, strategic voting, etc. I have a great appreciation for the KKE, but even I would never suggest that they are solely responsible for all the changing moods of the electorate. It is a combination of things, including the feeling that it's either-or to prevent non-governability. And sure, some people must have felt disenchantment at the hostility on the left (although that's hardly a new thing).

In any case, it's a result that the party predicted in advance. There is this interesting piece from the LSE, of all sources, commenting on this. It's worth quoting at length:

Quote:
Secondly, the KKE could certainly foretell its bad result (if not the actual numbers, then their gist), chiefly because of its strong organizational power and its tendency to hold frequent internal polls. Speaking in Chalkida approximately a week before the second election of 17 June, KKE General Secretary, Aleka Papariga said: “Ten days before the election of 6 May, polls showed that we had double digit percentages and we lost votes when we revealed what a government of the left would mean, we expected the loss, think, however, of the cost if we had said ‘yes’ … a temporary cost can be reverted when the justice of its position is proven, a durable political mistake, however, cannot be corrected easily and you pay for it for years” (To Vima, 11 June 2012). There seems to have been wide acknowledgement of the above described argument inside the KKE. With one exemption, in the form of a recently constructed blog publishing purportedly internal criticism of the party and its leadership, the KKE seems to have been cohesive and united in its last two electoral campaigns.


This seems like a very clear analysis to me. The party's statements on these elections can be read here:

http://interold.kke.gr/News/news2012/20 ... si-gg.html
http://interold.kke.gr/News/news2012/20 ... index.html
http://interold.kke.gr/News/news2012/20 ... index.html

As the LSE article indicates as well, the KKE may be a parliamentary party, but it does not consider the parliament the core of its work. It's unfair to say that the June 2012 result reflects the actual size and importance of the party, when you consider that in workplace and trade union committee elections, the KKE-related mass organisations still got good results. If I recall correctly, in many workplaces they were the biggest, although still "only" with one-third of the votes. A result, in any case, that would never be possible for a sectarian, dogmatic party or any other things that the KKE often gets accused of. The only shift in allegiance was in the parliament, in the very specific circumstances of the "repeat election" outlined above.

As the LSE guy puts it:

Quote:
The Greek communists realize that they can achieve very little in parliament and in government and at the same time that, in order to achieve the little that they can, they will have to undergo the risk of losing any kind of trustworthiness and potentially seeing their vote share drop even more drastically than it already has. If the KKE had decided to declare its willingness to form a government with SYRIZA and whoever else might have been interested to chip in for a radical left majority to be sustained, or even simply support it without official participation, then such a government would have been more likely than not to be formed. But the KKE already had a similar experience in 1989-1990 and still suffers from it. A protest party the KKE may be, but it is also one whose mobilization in work places, universities, trade unions, local committees and other forms of its own, patiently crafted civil society can yield results in terms of social capital; results that are more tangible and imperative for its future than any kind of maneuvering within state institutions.

With very few exceptions, the results of radical left party participation in, or support of government have always had a common denominator across time and space: the radical left compromises and loses votes, only to return back to opposition weakened, confused and divided (see Olsen, J., Koβ, M. and Hough, D. (eds) (2010) Left parties in national governments. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan).


(emphasis mine)

This experience is also important to consider. The core of SYRIZA (apart from ultra-left sects and disgruntled social-democrats) consists of those people who previously led the KKE into government participation, followed by a bitter struggle. It's not surprising that the KKE doesn't want to repeat this history today.
Soviet cogitations: 11
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Mar 2014, 21:34
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 18 Apr 2014, 20:46
I'm afraid that's a lot to digest and I'm not very handy with the quoting/editing system on this forum, but some points that got my attention:

No 14 wrote:
What about SYRIZA? It probably has a lot of working-class voters and members, but what are they to the party? Just individual citizens.


This is disingenuous. SYRIZA's membership was largely forged in the streets during the violent anti-austerity protests from the mid-2000's onwards. They were very active in organising community forums throughout Greece in the run up to the 2012 elections in order to formulate a platform that did it's best, given the conditions, to represent the interests of the poor and workers. SYRIZA was a massive presence at street level even during the election/ coalition discussion period. Accusations of connivance with the bourgeoisie are, frankly, far-fetched. Of course they had to entertain the idea of coalitional government so they could avoid accusations of being sectarians as they had genuine, popular mass support - something that didn't trouble the KKE.

Comparisons to 1990 are of less value given the more desperate state of Greece's economy (at the hands of foreign bankers) during the 2012 election period, and the more pressing need for a mass left-wing voice in the political process during a major capitalist crisis. The KKE weren't applying Marxist, materialist analysis to the situation in hand, but merely retreating into dogmatic isolation, something that has plagued far too many Marxist parties over the years, much to the capitalists glee.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 26 Apr 2014, 11:01
I'm not suggesting that SYRIZA have nothing to do with mass movements, but the question is, what do they do with them? How did they formulate their platform based on these street movements? Did they try to forge class consciousness, or did they, as populists tend to do, take the worst, lowest impulses of these movements and turn them into programmatic points that score well in the polls?

I think the answer to this question is clear when you consider the fact that SYRIZA's "solution" to the crisis is the fiction that the system can be salvaged to the benefit of the masses (the system can be salvaged, but only to our detriment). It is the quick, easy path. It lulls us into a false sense of security and keeps us from our confrontation with the real, internal enemy. 1990 or 2012, desperate situation or not, this analysis will lead to the repetition of the mistakes that splintered and nearly destroyed the KKE in 1990.

Your analysis that the desperate situation in Greece is the fault of "foreign bankers" seems to me completely in line with the usual SYRIZA-speak (as well as the propaganda of nationalists like Independent Greeks). They are telling the Greek workers that they don't need to confront the Greek bourgeoisie, but that it's all the fault of foreign capitalists (Germans, in particular). So I guess the Greek workers have no responsibility in unmasking and confronting their own bosses. They will just have to trust the politicians of a hypothetical Tsipras government (watered down by the Democratic Left and turned nationalist by Independent Greeks, possibly) to confront the Germans and cut a better deal with them.

Of course this is just the political side of things, which we can argue about forever. But your suggestion that the KKE are not "troubled" by mass support is just wilful ignorance that doesn't hold in reality. Their electoral support, whether it's 10 or 5 percent, is obviously relatively small, but still larger than that of the communist parties in Italy and France that are now allied to SYRIZA in the European Left Party, or indeed compared to almost every other European communist party, whether M-L or Eurocommunist. So what gives? Anyway, as I have already explained, electoral percentage is not the only measure of popular support. Still eagerly waiting for you to address this, as well as the worse situation of the Eurocommunist parties.
Soviet cogitations: 108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2014, 12:33
Pioneer
Post 01 May 2014, 17:20
The KKE had 11-12 percent in the opinion polls until they said they did not want to collaborate, support a SYRIZA government ... In the June 2012 election they garnered 4.5 percent. If the KKE had said yes, they would have been bigger, have a bigger chance to create a solid base within the "working class" and a bigger chance of taking power in a revolution - instead they chose to alienate their own supporters, pushing them into supporting SYRIZA (or other parties)... You can't defend such an outstanding policy failure.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 01 May 2014, 20:11
You sure can't if you're obsessed with poll figures. The
Image
working class
Image
scare quotes are a nice touch.
Soviet cogitations: 11
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Mar 2014, 21:34
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 03 May 2014, 02:07
It's not a question of being obsessed with opinion polls, it's about wielding power in the interests of those they claim to represent. And please, enough with the straw man arguments about the Greek bourgeoisie, as the people have been confronting them since the mid-2000's in massive protests and other actions which found it's main electoral expression in the form of SYRIZA. And of course the primary target must be foreign bankers as they are the ones who created the highly punitive "bailout" conditions that have exacerbated an already bad situation! The long and short of it is that there would have been space for a debate on the Euro with a SYRIZA government, less punitive bailout conditions and Pavlos Fyssas and Shehzad Luqman may well still be alive had a left-wing government been in power to crack down on Golden Dawn.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 208
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 May 2009, 19:37
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 03 May 2014, 06:26
As a supporter of KKE, I too do not believe in the prospect of a socialist government within capitalist framework.

Did anyone here know the story of Bo Xilai, GS of Chongqing party from 2007 to 2012. He was a reformist-socialist, and when he came to office in Chongqing, he began crackdown on corrupted official and mafia gangs, along with it was many social policies that benefit the working-class and farmers. The people of Chongqing held him in high regard.

And the result? The Chinese government became afraid of him. They framed him as a corrupted politician, dragged him to Beijing, trialled him and nearly gave him the death penalty. They said he wanted to repeat what Mao had done. Hah, what he had done was a tiny bit compared to Mao.
The Aesop? Reformist way will not do it, only Revolution will work. And what is the condition for Revolution? A strong working-class is the answer.

More information can be read here: http://monthlyreview.org/2012/10/01/the-struggle-for-socialism-in-china

From what I read in http://902.gr (KKE news website), KKE always sides with the workers on many strikes. They are working to grow the class-consciousness in the masses, pointing out who is the real enemy. And I think, it is the right way to go, even it cost them elections vote number. They may only have a small 4%, but that 4% is the class-conscious proletariat, who is strong and never give up in the battle with the bourgeoisie.

P.S: Anyone know any news website of SYRIZA, I want to know more about their view.
"Stalin brought us up — on loyalty to the people, He inspired us to labor and to heroism!" Soviet Anthem 1944.
Let's work hard and do valorous deed!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 55
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 15 Apr 2008, 14:15
Pioneer
Post 03 May 2014, 11:08
Engelsist wrote:
P.S: Anyone know any news website of SYRIZA, I want to know more about their view.


Unfortunately, the only one I know of is in Greek: http://www.avgi.gr

What Rizospastis is to KKE, Avgi is to SYRIZA.

I haven't kept up with the Greek blog scene in quite a while, so I can't be of much help there, I'm afraid.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 208
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 May 2009, 19:37
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 03 May 2014, 15:10
Lord Palmerston wrote:

Unfortunately, the only one I know of is in Greek: http://www.avgi.gr

What Rizospastis is to KKE, Avgi is to SYRIZA.

I haven't kept up with the Greek blog scene in quite a while, so I can't be of much help there, I'm afraid.


Thank alot. But seeing "Avgi" make me remember about Golden Dawn
"Stalin brought us up — on loyalty to the people, He inspired us to labor and to heroism!" Soviet Anthem 1944.
Let's work hard and do valorous deed!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 55
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 15 Apr 2008, 14:15
Pioneer
Post 04 May 2014, 01:36
No worries


The more classic (age-wise) newspapers in Greece usually have a 'day-theme' to their publications. For example: Avgi, which as you know means 'dawn' is a progressive title as it indicates symbolically looking forward to a new day. The same with Avriani = 'Tommorow's (Herald or Daily)', and was Centre-Left (i.e. PASOK)

Conservative newspapers remain on 'today's' basis: Vrathini = 'Tonight's (Herald or Daily)'.

But there's plenty of other newspapers which don't have this set of 'day theme' - there's a reason I brought it up (honestly
). ie. 'Rizospastis' merely means the Radical.

"Golden Dawn" (I think they've changed their name to Elliniki Avgi (Hellenic Dawn)) see themselves as ushering in a new era (their more national-socialist outlook) but within a specifically Greek context. Just as 21 April, 1967 was seen by the Colonels' Junta as a "Revolution", so GD see themselves as revolutionaries.

Now that I've typed all that out, a thought just struck me - most if not all of the members here, probably already know all of the above. Sorry about that!
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 04 May 2014, 07:18
Good for contextualisation anyway.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.