EMEP: Cross-Border Operation into Iraq is not a Solution; it will Only Antagonise Peoples

18th October 2007

Unfortunately, the dominant powers in Turkey don’t want to evaluate the representatives of Kurds in parliament as a chance for peace. In this context, Parliament voted the motion (507-19) in favour of empowering the government to order the military to cross into Iraq over a one-year period.

Before the voting in Parliament PM Erdogan called all people to support the operation and everyone who rejects the operation were accused of supporting the “terrorism”.

It’s clear that “military solution” which is dominated by military forces for “suppressing the rebellion” couldn’t be a real solution for Kurdish problem; on the contrary, a new operation into North Iraq will only antagonise the peoples of same region.

As voting a motion for cross-border operation, dominant forces want to continue their policies based on deny and violence against Kurdish problem and on the other hand, they want to put pressure on peoples who live in Turkey.

Also, the thought as ‘the cross-border operation into Iraq will be a reply to the USA’ –because of the vote about Armenian genocide- is a big illusion. We know that the “defy shows” against the USA are not real anti-imperialist attitudes. For a real anti-imperialism, Turkey must leave from NATO; all military bases of USA in Turkey must be closed and military agreements with USA and Israel must be cancelled.

Approving the military operation means “approving the war”. Our country and our peoples – both Kurds and Turks- will suffer from the results of this war.

Dominant powers mustn’t be allowed to sacrifice the brotherhood of Kurds and Turks to their political aims. Military methods, war and violence must be removed from alternatives of Kurdish question; discussion period must be started for democratic solution of question and democratic steps must be taken immediately.


Labour Party of Turkey (EMEP)

Read More »

On the Occasion of the 60th Anniversary of the Foundation of the Greek Democratic Army

Article published in Revolutionary Democracy Vol. XIII, No. 2, September 2007.

In the end of spring of 1945, coming back to Greece from the German concentration camp in which he was imprisoned, Nikos Zachariades, the Secretary General of the Communist Party of Greece, came across and faced a specific reality.

a) A large political, progressive popular movement, predominating in every part of the Greek territory, inspired by the political and ideological principles and the epic of the fighting resistance of the Communist Party of Greece and the National Liberation Front. At the same time, he faced a movement ‘tired’ and ‘disappointed’ by the contradictory and compromising policies of its leadership, blocked by the political accords with local reaction – the instruments of English imperialism – political accords of defeat and laying down the victorious arms of the Popular Army and the popular democratic movement in general (Lebanon, Plaka, Gazerta, Varkiza etc.). Moreover, the leader of the CPG faced the negative situation created by the military defeat of the Left in the battle against the English in Athens in December 1944. This was a battle fought under unacceptable political and military conditions, with strange and spur-of-the-moment methods – as proven by the evidence – and fought also under the leadership of Georges Siantos, the party’s Secretary General at the time of the German occupation, who was later accused by the party of being an agent of the Intelligence Service.

b) A CPG highly regarded by the Greek people, which however during the occupation had been transformed by its leadership from a politically innovative party (around 450,000 members) into an enormous, loose political body lacking a role, objectives, spirit and orientation; not a leading party but a party that allowed in any supporter. The party also included leading members who became known and were recognised by the people through the fight of the NLF, and at the same time leading members who were unable to complete their revolutionary mission, dominated and bound by the spirit of political compromise that they themselves had cultivated within the movement through their choices; dominated also by petit bourgeois self-satisfaction and pride deriving from the greatness of the movement, of which they were leading. After all, these cadres distorted the line of N. Zachariades as it was expressed in his historic letter of October 1940 when Greece was attacked by Italian fascism, a guiding letter of the leader of the CPG and at the same time the last public statement only shortly before he was handed over by the Italians and their Greek collaborators to the Germans and was imprisoned in Dachau concentration camp until the liberation of Germany by the Red Army. In the last paragraph of this historic letter, N. Zachariades related in a categorical way the anti-fascist fight to the fight for social liberation, stressing: ‘The prize for the working people and for the current fight must be and will be a new Greece, a Greece of labour, of liberty, purged of any dependence on imperialism, with a truly popular culture’. The leadership of the CPG during the occupation, with its political choices, disconnected the anti-fascist war from the general political perspective of the working people who should be fighting for national independence and social liberation.

c) Because of this political and leadership team of the CPG, strong conditions began to emerge which were favourable for the rapid reconstruction of the reactionary right-wing pro-English state. Bands of fascists committed murders in the villages and towns, thousands of fighters were arrested, terrorism dominated all over the country, the Treaty of Varkiza led to the disarmament and destruction of the glorious People’s Army of the National Liberation Front and the fighters of the countryside went up to the mountains once again to escape from the killing spree of the fascist bands.

This in brief was the situation that Nikos Zachariades, the leader of the CPG, had to deal with from the summer of 1945 onward, and on the basis of these very conditions he was called to take political and organisational initiatives, while the cycle of World War 2 had not yet been completed and the game of diplomacy concerning the global post-war situation was in a critical phase.

In the debates that have taken place – and still are going on – in Greece, in the scientific papers of historians and researchers, in the personal testimonies of leading Left members of that period, as well as on the other side too, in the long-term political and ideological controversy within the context of the Greek Left, many and often contrasting or consciously distorted evidence about the conditions under which the Civil War began and about the CPG’s leadership’s actions when Nikos Zachariades was at the head, have always been discussed. The slanderous and distorting efforts were developed and are still maintained with the same intensity, reinforced by the participation and behaviour of a large circle, of a front of ‘dark’ forces consisting of people united around the above objective. For half a century now, with the same mania, the ‘dark’ front keeps on with the same false arguments and consciously distorting tactics. In this front the most varied sectors of Greek society participated. Monarchist-fascists (of old and new types), revisionists of all kinds, social-democrats and Trotskyists play, directly and indirectly, the main role in slandering Nikos Zachariades’ personality and leading figure, with an obvious political-ideological goal: to deprive the Greek left and democratic movement of its own revolutionary and fighting traditions, as well as of its scientific and theoretical leading role that Nikos Zachariades played within the Greek movement and the CPG. The destructive force of the ‘dark’ propaganda was strongly reinforced after the absolute predominance of the forces of N. Khrushchev and L. Brezhnev in the international movement and particularly, after Nikos Zachariades’ assassination in Siberia in August 1973 after he had completed 17 years of exile there. This act had been pre-programmed by the KGB in collaboration with the leading team of the CPG (H. Florakis, K. Loules, K. Tsolakis etc.) to which the Soviet revisionists had assigned the leadership of the Greek party. The reason for the assassination of the head of the Greek Left was obviously to prevent his return to Greece after the forthcoming fall of the dictatorship, a fact that would disclose to the Greek people the political treason and would change – in favour of revolutionary opinion – the interrelations within the Greek movement. At the same time, however, Zachariades’ return to Greece as a political refugee would constitute a world-wide base for denouncing the revisionist Soviet party as well as the international state of affairs. At this point, we should refer to and emphasise the fact that under these bad conditions, the absolute predominance of the alliance of the ‘dark’ front, for decades and still until today, in the Greek left and popular movement there have been and still are forces resisting the reactionary anti-revolutionary front. The historic initiative of the anti-revisionist fight had been the tens of thousands of partisans, all refugees in the Eastern countries, the vast majority of whom (from 85% to 95%) stood by Nikos Zachariades’ side until the end, fighting against the violent anti-revolutionary intervention in the Greek Communist Party, facing unbelievable persecution, suffering, even imprisonment and exile.

The arguments against Nikos Zachariades that relate to his actions at the beginning of the Civil War, to the policy and strategy followed by the party during the second partisan fight, present not only an absolute lack of essential documentation, but also a range of varied and contradictory elements. Paradoxically the arguments are more or less the same in the reactionary and progressive circles. The overlapping opinions, which have different points of departure, reveal their real objectives; they aim to withhold the truth and to degrade Nikos Zachariades’ fighting stance and leadership abilities. In this document, we will not deal with the propaganda of the reactionary circles but rather with the reactionary and anti-historic arguments of those who talk in a ‘left’-wing manner and in the name of the Left:

1) The argument that Nikos Zachariades delayed the preparation and beginning of the armed rebellion.

This is a conscious distortion of the truth. The leader of the CPG, returning to Greece from Dachau, was faced with both a specific international and a domestic reality. He was informed, as soon as possible, of the international and domestic situation and he undertook very specific initiatives which were oriented towards:

a) The reconstruction of the CPG through the re-organisation of the party forces, the reinforcement of the political-educational work and its rapid transformation from a loose to a fighting, revolutionary workers’ party. He moved in this direction through the meetings of both the Plenary Sessions of the Central Committee and the 7th Conference, in which the issue of the international policy in these conditions and the complete scientifically documented programme for People’s Democracy were discussed. Furthermore, the strategy of connecting the party to the large workers’ and agricultural unions through many massive democratic processes put them quickly under the control of the party’s forces. He implemented the policy of reinforcing collaboration with the Agricultural Party and other co-operating parties of the democratic alliance. He implemented constant contact with the cadres of middle and lower rank and boosted their fighting conviction, which had fallen due to the compromising policies of the party’s leadership during the German occupation. During this period, Nikos Zachariades accrued information about the forces and possibilities of the movement, but also about the probable influence that enemy forces exerted within the CPG and the democratic front. It was also evident, that any decision in that period could not be made without taking into account the particular conditions in the greater Balkans area, since there were three new people’s democracies (Albania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria) which bordered Greece and were facing specific problems: their existence was intertwined with the unstable post-war transitional regime and was reflected both in Greece and in the Greek left movement. In addition, the CPG’s leadership, under those circumstances, could not ignore either the opinions of the regional left-wing parties or the opinions of Communist Party of Soviet Union, since the preparation of the armed rebellion – in order not to be considered an adventurous act – demanded in that very phase, many necessary political, technical and military preconditions.

b) The revolutionary, popular rebellion and conflict with British imperialism that was dominant in Greece during that period. The leadership of the CPG and Nikos Zachariades moved in this direction with a clear plan. Within a few months after his return to Greece, the line of mass popular self-defence against the reactionary groups was put into action and the formal battle cry of the Left, ‘English out of Greece’, which raised the fighting spirit of the Greek people, was heard for the first time. In this way, the perspective of struggle was cultivated in the people’s mind, since the Greek people knew by their experience during all those months, that the English and the Greek reaction had decided to exterminate the Greek popular left movement, preventing any perspective of reconciliation and resolution of the political problem through fair elections. At the same time, N. Zachariades and the leadership of the CPG and the international relationships ensured the political and military conditions for the popular rebellion that was coming. The political and organisational reconstruction of the movement that N. Zachariades undertook, took 8 months, beginning with his return to the country and the CPG’s leadership and ending with the milestone decision of the Plenary Session of the Central Committee of the CPG on November 12, 1946, the anniversary of the Treaty of Varkiza. This decision made clear that the armed fight was unavoidable and led to the first military plans. We can rebut the false arguments that Nikos Zachariades did not have a clear line for the armed fight and that he delayed going into the mountains – arguments absolutely irrelevant to the particular conditions of this specific period – with much evidence. We will refer however only to two characteristics:

1) Nikos Zachariades’ refusal to leave Athens and the leadership of the party’s apparatus before the departure abroad of G. Siantos (Secretary General of the party during the period of the German occupation who was responsible for the compromising political defeat of the Left), something that Siantos avoided doing despite the orders he was given. The opening of the CPG’s files from that period, which has been almost completed today and published in historic papers, although they are available to any researcher, highlights that situation and reveals to any honest fighter, researcher and historian the real facts. It was clear that Nikos Zachariades thought that within the political team of the movement there was a problem of vigilance and unity, a problem that he could not ignore. A series of telegrams from N. Zachariades to other cadres of the party who were on missions abroad proves this fact.

2) The testimony of Kostas Koligiannis (a leading cadre of the CPG), which he gave at the 3rd Conference of the CPG in October 1950, is testimony among tens of others with the same content. Kostas Koligiannis’ testimony is very interesting because he became the Soviet revisionists’ favourite; they named him Secretary General in N. Zachariades’ place, after the anti-democratic overthrow of the legal leader of the CPG. Kostas Koligiannis said: ‘In order for Markos Vaphiades to free himself from responsibilities, he claimed that the party did not start the fight in order to win with strength and determination, that the fight was waged under illusions and inconstancies and for this reason we did not win. Apart from the fact that everybody knew how the party’s decision was initially made, I want to say something that refutes M. Vaphiades’ claim. In July 1946, N. Zachariades himself told me, when I was departing to Epirus, that we should create a massive armed movement. He also said specifically that we should start from the region of Konitsa and Zagori with North Epirus and Tzoumerka as bases of operation and Western Macedonia and Thessaly behind us and to proceed further maintaining these two bases of operation. If we formed small groups in order to use them as a means of restraint in the handling of the situation, as M. Vaphiades says, then what would the mass partisan group – that the party asked us to form since June 1946 – serve for? I went there with the decision-making responsibility of the political office, because I went as the secretary of the party’s organisation. And why would the party give this order to us and another order to other organisations? I think that what M. Vaphiades says constitutes an attempt to free himself from some extremely serious responsibilities, the principal ones, because we lost the chance to resolve, in the end of 1946 and in 1947, the problem of reserves that decisively and determinatively affected the evolution of the armed fight.¹The above testimony concerning the responsibilities and inefficiencies of the General of the Democratic Army of Greece, Markos Vaphiades, a man who has been in the circle of protagonists in the slander against N. Zachariades and who later co-operated with K. Koligiannis, solves the puzzle and leads to objective conclusions.

2) The abstention from the general elections in March 1946.

The second mistake, a ‘determinative’ one as the cadres of the anti-Zachariades chorus characterised it, was the abstention of the CPG and the other parties of the democratic alliance from the general elections that the English and their vassal reactionary government of Athens organised on March 20, 1946. The ‘chorus’ claims that the Left should have taken part in the elections, although they knew that these elections had been held under the awful conditions of unbelievable terrorism, of thousands of arrests of left citizens, of hundreds of murders just within that month, and with no guarantees for a normal, legal and transparent holding of the elections. The supporters of this ‘view, even in this case, artificially separated the elections not only from these specific conditions but also from the movement’s perspective. They criticised the question of elections from a static view. They pretended that they do not know or they hid the fact that:

(a) all the non-CPG parties and organizations of the democratic alliance were intensively and insistently in favour of abstention;

(b) one month before, in February 1946, the Plenary Session of the Central Committee of the CPG had realised that the march toward an armed fight was unavoidable, since Greek reaction and the English had decided to proceed towards it.

Participation in the rigged elections would have legalised the reactionary front and would have reinforced the electoral illusions of the Greek people, whereas the election result under no circumstances would have expressed honestly and clearly the people’s political conviction and the real political influence of the Left.

Participation in the election would have led the people, the popular movement and the CPG, into a vicious circle of contradictions and inequality, similar to that of 1944-1945 which was the cause of the political ‘capture’ and defeat of the movement. Nikos Zachariades in his last authorised text titled ‘Problems of the CPG’s crisis – contribution to the political discussion’, written in 1962 in exile in Siberia, referred to a great extent to the question of abstention and among other things he stressed: ‘In the decision taken during the 8th Conference [after Nikos Zachariades’ overthrow], it was said that abstention is a terrible mistake with serious consequences for the party and the democratic movement. The decision does not explain the content of this ‘terrible mistake’, but the meaning is clear. If we participated in the elections we would secure a peaceful evolution for Greece! Where to? It was similar to the essentially opportunist plan of Partsalides [revisionist leader] that was part of the policy of appeasing reaction and submitting to it. So Partsalides was trying, after what happened, to justify also the treason of Varkiza [the treaty of disarmament of the People’s Army that he signed]. In 1946, elections could under no circumstances play an important role other than to reinforce reaction. Only an opportunist to the bone could declare that if we had participated in the elections the whole evolution of Greece would have been different. This was not the truth. The English, with the support of the Committee of the United Nations which supervised the elections [the Soviet Union refused to participate in this committee, perhaps because she knew what was in the air], wanted to mislead us as to the rigged elections which they were preparing, in order to legalise through the parliament, with the people’s vote, the intervention of December 1944 and the issue of Varkiza and thus to impose the monarchist-fascist regime. This is the truth. The following is noteworthy too: The Committee of the UN allocated us 9.3% abstention votes. If we had participated in the elections it would have given us generously three times more. Thus, it would have secured the people’s stamp of approval in favour of monarchist-fascism and the occupation forces. Partsalides was pushing the movement in this direction, towards the ratification of the Treaty of Varkiza. Our weakness [Zachariades goes on] during that period was a different and decisive one. The masses hesitated because we laid down our arms; no other European movement did something so shameful. We betrayed them in December in Athens and in Varkiza; we betrayed Greece and the National Resistance. For this reason, today the Xians [fascist band named X] beat us up on the streets and keep us hidden in our holes. The whole attempt to recreate the party from the 12th Plenary Session [on 25th-27th of June 1945]² was leading exactly to this: to arouse the movement and the CPG again in order for them to fall in line with the historical demands of that critical period and the party did it until the 2nd Plenary Session in February [1946].³ Let us not forget that the party’s leadership at that time, even after December, still did not have any policy for the English which was worthy of the people and the CPG and as a result, regarding the English, the policy of submission of Plaka, Gazerta, Varkiza was continued. The battle cry ‘English Out Of Greece’ was heard only when the party was reconstructed in order to extricate itself from the shame that the Treaty of Varkiza attributed to us’.

N. Zachariades expressed, clearly and revealing the truth, his opinion on the issue of abstention from the elections of 1946. This position helps anyone who wants to draw more general conclusions on the situation, on the role and orientation of each individual. We think that through these two cases to which we referred – the most important ones of that period and the most important ones regarding the political controversy within the movement – clear and useful conclusions can be drawn; conclusions concerning the lines within the CPG, the revolutionary and the opportunist line. This conflict between lines has determined the facts for the next two decades and until now, in the contemporary epoch, and is related to the need and duty of reconstructing the movement on the basis of the principles of scientific socialism of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin.

Endnotes:

1. 3rd conference of the CPG from October 10-14, 1950, Introductions, Speeches, Decisions.

2. The Plenary Sessions were meetings of the Central Committee of the CPG between the Congresses. The numbering of the Plenary Sessions restarts in the event of a congress. The 12th Plenary Session of June 1945 took place between the 6th and the 7th Congress of the CPG. The 7th Congress took place in the autumn of 1945.

3. The 2nd Plenary Session took place exactly a year after the treacherous Treaty of Varkiza.

The Political Committee of the Movement of the Reorganisation of the Communist Party of Greece 1918-1955

Read More »

Revolutionary Democracy Vol.XIII, No.2 RELEASED

We would like to inform our readers that the the new issue of Revolutionary Democracy just released with the following contents. Links to most of the articles are also available. Most of the material (and some unpublished stuff) is located in http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org

Revolutionary Democracy

Vol. XIII, No. 2, September 2007

Indo-US Nuclear Deal: A Recipe For Blackmail, Nirmalangshu Mukherji

POSCO Destroys Rural Families of Jagatsinghpur, Orissa, Dr. N. Bhattacharyya

Nutritional Norms and the Measurement of Poverty, Jaya Mehta (9 p.)

On the Events in Nandigram, Revolutionary Democracy

In the Aftermath of Nandigram, Prabhat Patnaik

CPM’s Grazing Land, Sumit Mitra

Resolution on Nandigram Events, DUTA

Sexual Harassment Bill, 2007, NTUI

Remembering Clara Zetkin, Vijay Singh (7 p.)

The Tukhachevsky Conspiracy, Yuri Yemelianov (9 p.)

On the 60th Anniversary of the Foundation of the Greek Democratic Army, Communist Party of Greece 1918-1955

A Few Comments on ‘Critical Notes on Political Economy’ by Che Guevara, Rafael Martinez (20 p.)

Marx and Engels on the Asiatic Mode of Production in India, Taimur Rahman (12 p.)

D.D. Kosambi and the Ambiguous Transitions from Indology, C. N. Subramaniam (7 p.)

Comrade Ubaldo Buttafava has Died, CC CP of the Proletariat of Italy

The Unity of Marxist-Leninists Is Necessary, Communist Party of Germany

Philippines: A Stronger Revolutionary Movement, Prof. Jose Maria Sison

International Conference on Peoples’ Struggle Against Imperialist Attacks in the Middle East

Declaration of the XI International Seminar: Problems of the Revolution in Latin America

9th Summit of the African Union, Union of African Workers – Senegal

Unity and the Popular Struggle are Progressing, in Colombia, Latin America and the Caribbean, Communist Party of Colombia (Marxist-Leninist)

We Condemn the Imperialist-Zionist ‘Democratic’ Coup d’Etat, Toufan

PFLP Statement on the 40th Anniversary of the 1967 War

Stop the War Against Iran, Toufan

Kidnapping of the Prominent Iranian Trade Union Leader Mansour Ossanlou, Toufan (not in print edition)

Attacks against Hamma Hammami and Radhia Nasraoui, Communist Party of the Workers of Tunisia (not in print edition)

Haitian Grassroots Organisations Speak Out

About the Events in Oaxaca, CP of Mexico (M-L) (not in print edition)

On the 125th Birth Anniversary of Georgi Dimitrov:

• Letter to G. M. Malenkov on the Visit of Rahula Sankrityayana to the Soviet Union, (4th May, 1945), Georgi Dimitrov (1 p.)

• Masonic Lodges – a National Threat, Georgi Dimitrov (1 p.)

• On Dimitrov, Vijay Singh (4 p.)

• Obituary of Georgi Dimitrov, CPSU (b)

• Two Poems on Dimitrov, Tr. Rashmi Joshi (5 p.)

The British Road to Socialism of 1951: A Programme of People’s Democracy, Vijay Singh

On the British Road to Socialism, J.V. Stalin (25 p.)

Obituary: Death of Ousmane Sembene, Pencoo

Film Review: Lage Raho Munnabhai, Sandeep Bajeli (6 p.)

The Poetry of Habib Jalib, Tr. Arjumand Ara (10 p.)

Editorial Board
Tahir Asghar, Ashim Roy, Vijay Singh, C.N. Subramaniam, Rajesh Tyagi.

Editorial Address
5-B, Sudhir Bose Marg,
University Enclave, Delhi-110007, India

Web-site
www.revolutionarydemocracy.org

Read More »

It is absolutely correct and acceptable to use the term “Stalinism”

It is absolutely correct and acceptable to use the term “Stalinism”

The “Movement for the Reorganisation of KKE 1918-1955”, continuing the ideological and political traditions of the international communist movement in the time of Comintern-Comniform and the revolutionary KKE 1918-1955; in contrast to the Khruschevian revisionism and all the opportunist organisations that invoke Stalin in order to deceive the communists, but at the same time attack him; considers the term “Stalinism” absolutely correct and adopts its use.

We believe that the use of the term “Stalinism” as a scientific concept is both correct and necessary because:

1. It signifies the further development of Marxism-Leninism in the era of socialist construction in the Soviet Union as well as in the countries of the socialist camp after the Second World War. “Stalinism theoretically showed the path to socialism and practically realised it” (N. Zachariadis, 1939).

2. Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism constitutes the indivisible unity of the revolutionary outlook of the proletariat and its party.

3. Stalinism is nothing more than the Marxism-Leninism of our era.

4. The international communist movement, including revolutionary KKE 1918-1955, were using the term “Stalinism”.

5. The elimination of socialism and the liquidation of the international communist movement by the Khruschevian revisionists were committed in the name of “Marxism-Leninism” and the struggle against Stalin and Stalinism.

6. From the middle of 1950’s right up until nowadays, all the attacks of the bourgeois, fascist, Trotskyite, old and new, revisionist reaction (social democratic, Titoist, Khruschevian, etc.) have been always focused on Stalin and his work, Stalinism.

7. Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism most clearly determines the revolutionary ideological and political orientation of the communist movement.

8. The use of the term Stalinism distances the revolutionary communist movement not only from the Trotskyites and the Khruschevian revisionists but also from the various opportunistic organisations which although typically invoke the name of Stalin, at the same time, directly or indirectly, attack him from rightist premises in the name of a speculative “criticism on Stalin’s mistakes”.

This new variant of contemporary revisionism hidden behind the “criticism on Stalin’s mistakes” has three basic, albeit untold, goals:

1. To drag the revolutionary communist movement to an anti-Stalinist course.

2. To keep it fragmented.

3. As far as Greece is concerned, to prevent the reorganisation of the KKE 1916-1955, a task that can be fulfilled only through the uncompromising and consistent defence of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism, proletarian internationalism and the work of the unyielding communist leader Nikos Zachariadis who was the first in the international communist movement to discern and stand up against Khruschevian revisionism before the 20th Congress (as early as 1955) by organising and directing the struggle of the Greek communists against it.

The work of Stalin and Stalinism, the Marxism-Leninism of our era, is an invaluable weapon for the communists in their struggle against Khruschevian revisionism and the various opportunist liquidators and for the proletariat in its struggle against capitalism-imperialism.

Finally, we conclude with the response given to the social-democrats by the great communist leader and secretary of Comintern, Georgi Dimitrov: “The social-democrat lackeys often call us “stalinists” and they think that in this way they insult the communists. But we are proud of this honorary appellation as we are proud of the appellation “leninists”. There is no greater honor for a revolutionary than being a true leninist, a true stalinist, a devoted disciple of Lenin and Stalin until the end. And there is no greater happiness for the communists than fighting under the guidance of Stalin for the triumph of the international proletariat's just cause. Not everybody can be a stalinist. The honorary appellation “leninist-stalinist” has to be won through bolshevik struggle, persistence and unlimited devotion to the cause of the working class” (G. Dimitrov “Stalin and the international proletariat”, 1939).

Movement for the Reorganisation of KKE 1918-1955

Read More »

The victory of the Great October Revolution and the successful construction of socialism

Article scheduled to be published in "Unity & Struggle" issue 15

The victory of the Great October Revolution and the successful construction of socialism
– The greatest historical validation and confirmation of Marx’s scientific theory.

November of this year will mark the 90th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, the greatest event of the 20th century that resulted, for the first time, in the rise of the workers, peasants and soldiers and the establishment of the first proletarian state in human history. All generations in the 20th century solemnly honour the Great October Socialist Revolution.

The victorious outcome of the Proletarian Revolution in Russia marked the beginning of a new era in human history and constituted the greatest historical validation and confirmation of Marx’s scientific theory regarding three fundamental questions.

First, regarding the historical necessity and inevitability of the proletarian revolution and socialism; that “the class struggle leads to the communist Revolution (Marx). The historical necessity and inevitability of the proletarian revolution are rooted in the laws underlying the development of the material forces of production and their conflict with the obsolete relations of production of the last antagonistic socio-economic formation, capitalism. As Marx wrote: “Precisely as capitalism succeeded feudalism, socialism likewise will inevitably succeed capitalism”.

Second, regarding the possibility of the practical application of socialism, considered by the bourgeois theorists a utopia and impossible. Until the victory of the October Socialist Revolution, socialism was a scientific theory that hadn’t been applied yet. Through the construction of socialism in the Soviet Union of Lenin-Stalin, it was proved for the first time that socialism does not constitute merely a scientific theory but a social system that can be established and demonstrate its superiority over capitalism.

In this way, all claims made by the bourgeois theorists and economists that the socialist economy is allegedly an “irrational” one (due to the absence of private property, market and competition) and, therefore, unable to prevail and operate, are refuted. (N.G. Pierson, L.v. Mises, M. Weber, A. Weber, and others).

Third, regarding the fact that the construction of socialism-communism is possible only on the condition that the principles of revolutionary Marxism are steadfastly upheld and followed. The incorrect conduct of the class struggle against the counter-revolutionary and anti-socialist forces after Stalin’s murder resulted in the prevalence of the Khruschevian revisionist counter-revolution.

The victory of the October Socialist Revolution also confirmed all the tenants of the Leninist-Stalinist theory of Proletarian Revolution

Firstly, it confirmed that the revolutionary proletariat, being in close alliance with the poor peasantry, is the main, decisive and leading force of the Proletarian Revolution.

Secondly, it confirmed the necessity for a revolutionary party which is equipped with the theory of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin in the role of organiser and leader of the revolution which doesn’t share its leadership with other parties.

Thirdly, it confirmed that the path of armed insurrection is the only path to the overthrow of capitalism.

Fourthly, it confirmed the necessity for the smashing of the bourgeois state machinery as an essential condition for the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, “that will be led by a single party, the party of communists, which will not and should not share its leadership with other parties” (Stalin).

Fifthly, it confirmed that the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary for the whole transitional period from capitalism to communism.
The legendary events that took place in Russia during the “10 days that shook the world”, in October of 1917, did not come out of the blue. After three years of engagement in the imperialist First World War, the situation in the Eastern Front was desperate. The ill-led, wretchedly equipped Russian Army had been cut to pieces by the Germans. Shaken by the impact of the war and rotted from within the feudal Tsarist regime tottered and fell. In March, thousands of exasperated soldiers poured from the front to the cities and together with workers forced Tsar Nicholas II to abdicate. A Provisional Government was established with Prime Minister Alexander Kerensky. But even after the collapse of the autocracy, the Revolution was only beginning.

The Provisional Government didn’t heed the cry for Peace, Bread and Land! that swept across the vast country summing up the immediate longings and the ancient aspirations of the war-weary, starved and dispossessed Russian millions. This brought the Mensheviks and the Socialist Revolutionaries in difficult position because while, Kerensky’s partners in the Provisional Government, they were at the same time the dominating forces in the Soviets; the elected bodies of the revolutionary workers, peasants and soldiers. On the other hand, the influence of the Bolsheviks in the Soviets and among the workers in general was constantly rising. Contrary to the bourgeois and socialist parties, the Bolsheviks were adhered to the unfulfilled aims of the February revolution. Moreover, at a time when the reactionary forces and the Provisional Government kept postponing the convention of the Constituent Assembly, the Bolsheviks went a step further demanding the transfer of all state power to the Soviets.

In September 1917 matters reached a crisis. Against the overwhelming sentiment of the country, Kerensky formed a Coalition Government with the propertied classes. As a result the Mensheviks and the Socialist Revolutionaries lost the confidence of the people forever. Around the same time the Tsarist General Kornilov, organised a revolt with the object of crushing the revolution and of restoring czarism. The Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party called upon the workers, soldiers and sailors to rise in defence of the revolution. All this speeded up the Revolution even more and put the armed insurrection on the order of the day. On Lenin’s proposal a Party Centre headed by Stalin was set up to direct the insurrection.

By the morning of 7th of November (25 October, Old Style), the telephone exchange, the chief telegraph office, the radio station, the bridges across the Neva, the railway stations and the most important government offices were in the hands of the insurgent proletariat. The Winter Palace, the seat of the Provisional Government, had also been captured. The signal for the storming of the Palace by detachments of Red Guards and sailors was a blank shot from the guns of the cruiser “Aurora”. The insurrection had succeeded. At 10 a.m. the Military Revolutionary Committee issued its historic manifesto drawn up by Lenin, addressed “To the Citizens of all Russia” proclaiming to the masses of the people the overthrow of the Provisional Government and the transfer of the state power to the Soviets. In the evening, the Second Congress of Soviets was opened in Smolny. The transfer of all power, central and local, to the Soviets was officially proclaimed.

Thanks to the heroism, faith and self-denial of the advanced working masses and the ardent guidance of the Bolsheviks, the flame of the October Revolution spread in almost a month to all cities and regions of Central Russia. In Moscow, Novgorod, Ekaterinenburg the bourgeois-capitalist rule was overthrown and the new proletarian rule was founded.

The great thinker Lenin, by creatively applying and further developing the Marxist theory in accordance to the conditions of his time, showed the way to the October Revolution that eliminated the vestiges of serfdom, liberated the people of tens of nationalities from the bondage of the bestial tsarist regime, socialised all the means of production and the natural resources of the country and established the workers-peasants power. The October Revolution, by far the most significant event of the 20th century, literally changed the course of human history. For the first time since the dawn of civilisation, the ancient dream of the exploited toiling masses came true; the exploitation of man by man was abolished. What’s more, the oppressed masses became masters of their own land, of their own destiny.

The October Revolution awakened millions of working masses all around the world and shook the foundations of the barbaric and brutal imperialism. It helped the people of the capitalist countries, primarily Britain, France and Germany, become even more aware of the utter futility of the imperialist war that served only the interests of the European ruling circles. In one country after another, communist parties were founded adhering to the Bolshevik revolutionary principles and tactics. The class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat become bitter. In some cases, socialist revolutions broke out like in Germany and Hungary where resulted in short lived Soviet Republics. The people in countries under colonial rule, China, India, Persia and elsewhere also rose against their rulers. The world colonial system entered a period of prolonged and deep crisis that would eventually bring its end after the Second World War.

The October Revolution proclaimed the advent of a new era in the history of all mankind, the era of proletarian revolution and proletarian dictatorship, the era of transition from capitalism to communism. The Russian workers by making their “leap to heavens” paved the way for their brothers in other countries to follow suit. As Lenin wrote: “We started this work. How long it will take and whose country’s proletarians are going to finish is not the main issue. The main issue is that the ice is broken, the road is open, and the course is set”. The October Revolution gave birth to the International Communist Movement and favoured its gradual development. It led to the establishment of the Third International (1919-1943) which replaced the bankrupt and treacherous Second International. Henceforth, the Third International became a force that imperialism had to reckon with in all its future plans. It was the headquarters of the International Proletarian Revolution. Being members of the Third International, the Communist Parties were able to draw from the long revolutionary experience of the Bolsheviks and play a leading role in the struggle of the workers in their own countries.
Leaders like Lenin and Stalin who perform such feats are born perhaps once in a millennium. “Leaders” are not the ones named by all kinds of adventurists, exploiters and mobsters. Leaders are those who have unshakable devotion to ideals that fully express the true interests and the wishes of the masses, wretched by the exploitation and oppression of the world tyrants. Together Lenin and Stalin annihilated the remnants of the tsarist armies and the hordes of intervention sent to the land of Soviets by the imperialist and other European countries, including Greece, in order to overthrow the proletarian power. After Lenin’s death, Stalin solemnly swore before the great leader’s coffin to continue his work. He kept this oath up to the last letter.

As the leader of CPSU and the people of the Soviet Union, Stalin successfully carried out the Leninist policy of industrialisation, and collectivisation of the country through the launch of the five-year plans and surpassing enormous difficulties and problems. But nothing would be possible without the monolithic unity of the Bolshevik Party. And this Stalin maintained, like “the apple of his eye”, by crushing ideologically and politically all the opportunistic factions that opposed the socialist construction; the groups of Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Bukharin. All those who turned out to be nothing more than common criminals, saboteurs and murderers, paid agents of fascism and imperialism. Stalin led the party and the people of the Soviet Union in all fields scoring huge successes in economy, defence, education, health, culture, sciences, research, technology and generally, in social and cultural development. In a slightly more than a decade, the country was transformed into an industrial and military superpower. Stalin, CPSU and the Soviet Union became a legend and humanity’s star of hope and pride.

The industrial and military might acquired with the first second and third five plan allowed the Soviet people to achieve the greatest triumph of all centuries: the victory over the German Nazism, the Italian and Japanese fascism in the Great Patriotic War. Compared to its allies, the Soviet Union bore the greatest weight of the war and paid an extremely high price for it. This, historically well-established, fact is evident not only from the sheer size of the human losses – more than 20 million dead – but also from the devastation of the Soviet homeland which was of shocking scale.
Soon after the Great Victory, the heroic and proud people of the Soviet Union accomplished new feats of labour by almost completing the reconstruction of their vast country from 1945 to 1952. Alas, the internal class enemies, though defeated, had not been totally eliminated. As a matter of fact, throughout the whole period of the Great Patriotic War and the reconstruction of the devastated homeland, the dark reaction, the crypto-fascists and the revisionists in the ranks of the mass organisations, and especially CPSU, were undermining the work of CPSU and the Soviet state using all possible means, not excluding terrorist methods. They murdered Zhdanov, Schernbakov in 1948 and in 1953 I. V. Stalin himself. For this purpose, they employed a group of doctors that had been recruited in a US-based secret organisation whose mission was to eliminate the People’s Republics leaders, eminent scientists and state officials from all progressive countries. The victims of the doctor’s gang, that numbered about 70 members in the Soviet Union, were many. Although they were all arrested, they were acquitted and released later by Khrushchev apart from nine of them who had been already executed for the murder of Zhdanov and Stalin.

The murder of Stalin was followed by the murder of a whole series of party and state officials such as the Moscow and Kremlin Garrison Commanders, 29 top ranking cadres of State Security, many cadres from the Soviet Republics, and the leaders of almost all the People’s Republics; Wilhelm Pieck from Germany, Klement Gotvald from Czechoslovakia, Boleslaw Beirut from Poland, Ana Pauker from Romania, Vulko Chervenkov from Bulgaria, Matias Rakosi from Hungary and Nikos Zachariades from the Communist Party of Greece (KKE).

Behind all these crimes they were the counter-revolutionary group of N. Khrushchev, A. Mikoyan, L. Beria, Mikhail Suslov and others plotting against the Soviet power, socialism and aiming at the restoration of capitalism. But coming out openly with these goals, as early as 1953, would only amount to their suicide. They were compelled to proceed gradually, being cautious in every step. Most importantly, they had to find another target that would serve their sinister purpose indirectly. Of course that target was Stalin and his world-historical work. By condemning (that is slandering) Stalin and his alleged excesses and mistakes, the crypto-fascists revisionists condemned the man who incarnated the very triumph of socialism not only in USSR but in one-third of the world.

The next step was the official revision of Marxism-Leninism that started with the 20th Congress (“peaceful transition” etc.) and continued with the decisions of the 22nd Congress of CPSU (“state of all people” etc). Once revisionism seized political power, it moved on with its economical programme; a series of individual reforms carried out immediately after the 20th Congress (simultaneously with the overthrow of the dictatorship of the proletariat) that culminated in the so-called Kosygin reforms in 1964-65 resulting in the gradual but complete restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union and transforming it from the centre of world revolution into the centre of revisionist counter-revolution.

Some of Khrushchev’s other despicable political actions include the following: 1) The purge of almost all CPSU cadres (c.a. 98%) 2) The discharge and replacement of elite officers of all ranks and fighting services 3) The replacement of the administrative machinery (c.a. 94%) in all branches of production, in educational and research institutes, in hospitals and cliniques 4) The liquidation of the World Peace Movement 5) The violent intervention and liquidation of the communist movement throughout the world 6) The establishment of a system of corruption, bribery, and embezzlement. 7) The encouragement of unlimited consumption of alcohol and the emergence of an increasing criminality in all socialist countries. 8) The formation of a capitalist caste of privileged officials – the “nomenclature” – in all fields. 9) The introduction of cosmopolitanism and the exhibition of the capitalist way of life and culture in socialist societies. 10) The blemish, the vulgar slandering of the work and history of CPSU, its leadership and the Soviet people. 11) The extortion of recantations (about 1000 a day published in Pravda) from party, science economy cadres. All this turned the country into a vast breeding-ground for the final figures of the treason, such that has never been witnessed by humanity throughout the centuries: M. Gorbachev, B.Yeltsin, A. Yakovlev, E. Sevardnadze and Co.

The prevalence of the Khruschevites in CPSU resulted in a new status quo in the communist movement and in the socialist camp. They tried to impose the new counter-revolutionary line adopted in the infamous 20th Congress to all communist parties in the world. In order to achieve this, they employed every possible means of intervention in the internal affairs of the fraternal parties, every kind of pressure and threat, political and economical blackmail. All the communist parties that adopted the ideological-political line of the 20th Congress degenerated into bourgeois, socialdemocratic parties. The case of our party, KKE, is worth mentioning briefly because it was the first party in the world that experienced a violent revisionist attack. The peculiar circumstances under which our party was working during that period were favourable to this intervention. In 1949, after the end of a heroic three-year armed struggle against the Greek royal-fascism and Anglo-American imperialism, the majority of the KKE members and cadres were forced to leave their country and settle in the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries.

Even before the 20th Congress, when the Khrushchevites realised that the KKE leadership headed by Nikos Zachariades is not going heed their calls to abandon the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist course and follow the anti-Stalinist revisionist course, they made a further step. They proceeded to form a right opportunist faction in the Tashkent Party Organisation (KOT), and to promote this faction right up to the Organisation’s leadership. KOT was the largest KKE Party Organisation in the socialist countries and the Khrushchevites knew that if they managed to subjugate it then it would be much easier to subjugate the whole Party. However, the revolutionary KKE leadership headed by Nikos Zachariades immediately took measures and removed fraction’s cadres from the leadership of KOT. This was just the pretext for the pre-planned open provocation that followed. On the 9th of September 1955, around 400 factionists, armed with knives and sticks, attempted to capture by force the offices of KOT, serving at that time as a temporary seat of some visiting members of the CC of KKE. This bloody pogrom failed thanks to the overwhelming resistance of the Greek communists in Tashkent many of whom suffered knife injuries in the clash with the factionists. The whole operation was under the guidance of Saakov, KGB Colonel Saakov who, in turn, was employed by Boris Panomariov, the member of the CC of CPSU entrusted with the KKE affairs.

The overwhelming majority of the Greek communists in Tashkent and other Party organisations wholeheartedly condemned this despicable act of violence and provocation and supported the lawful leadership of KKE headed by Nikos Zachariades. The Party’s unity was evidently expressed in the elections of representatives for the KOT Conference which would appoint a new KOT Bureau; the majority of the elected representatives were loyal to the lawful KKE leadership. It was evident that the KOT Conference would amount to the political death of the faction but following an order from CC of CPSU the Conference was cancelled.

In the 20th Congress of CPSU, the Khruschevites formed the so-called “International Committee of Fraternal Parties” consisting of cadres from the Soviet, Romanian, Hungarian, Polish, Czechoslovak and Bulgarian parties. However, their behaviour towards KKE was anything but fraternal. The International Committee openly and without pretexts intervened in KKE by arbitrarily summoning the infamous 6th Plenum (March 1956). This illicit body was convened by summoning a whole bunch of former, i.e. removed, KKE cadres but not the General Secretary of the Party Nikos Zachariades. The report was read by the Romanian opportunist Georgiu Dez. The 6th Plenum illegally and forcibly removed the lawfully elected revolutionary leadership of KKE, including the Party’s General Secretary Nikos Zachariades, who was arrested and isolated, and appointed a right opportunistic puppet leadership that consisted of individuals like K. Koligianis, K. Tsolakis (who participated in the bloody pogrom in Tashkent aiming at the murder of Zachariades), M. Partsalidis and others. The 6th Plenum adopted the counter-revolutionary social-democratic line promulgated in the 20th Congress of CPSU. What followed was the expulsion from the party of thousands of communists who were staunch Marixst-Leninists and loyal to the lawful KKE leadership.

The years that followed 1956 were years of fascist persecutions of all the Greek communists, who remained faithful to Stalin and Zachariades by the Soviet and Greek Khrushchevian revisionists. These persecutions took various forms: surveillance, spying, arrests, imprisonments, exile to Siberia, etc. Thousands party cadres were exiled to Siberia and among them the Party’s General Secretary, Nikos Zachariades, who, after 17 years of exile, was murdered in Sorgut by the treacherous Brezhnev-Florakis clique so that he wouldn’t return alive to Greece and upset their plans.

Essentially a new party emerged out of 6th Plenum. This new party shamelessly usurped the name “K”KE although it has been, from the very beginning, a bourgeois social democratic party which bears no political, ideological or organizational relation with the revolutionary KKE. The anti-Stalinism of this 6th Plenum abortion is evident even today not only from its everyday political tactics but also from its hypocritical statement for the 90th anniversary of the October Revolution.

We mention only a few: a) No reference is made to the vital and irreplaceable role of Stalin in the October Revolution, in the Civil War and, above all, in the construction of socialism during the whole period 1924-1953. b) The line promulgated by the 7th Congress of the Third International in 1935 that set as primary task for the Communist parties the anti-fascist struggle is considered mistaken. c) The absolutely right decision on the self-dissolution of the Third International in 1943 is said to have deprived the Communist Movement of the decision centre needed to devise a strategy against imperialism. At the same time, it is held that Comniform didn’t manage to fulfil this role after the war. d) The Stalinist leadership of CPSU is actually blamed for underestimating the intra-imperialist antagonisms and entertaining pacifistic illusions. e) Of course, the 20th Congress of CPSU and Khruschevian revisionism didn’t amount to the overthrow of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the restoration of capitalism. f) The line of peaceful co-existence is shamelessly attributed to Stalin and the 19th Congress of CPSU g) The anti-revisionist attitude of the Communist Parties of Albania and China is bluntly called “antisovietism”.

The perception of the 20th Congress, Khruschevian revisionism and the anti-stalinist slandering as the gravediggers of the great October Revolution is the dividing line between communism and anti-communism. The question that should be asked is then: How did the class enemy manage to commit treason of such scale and such dimensions? It is a fact that after the glorious victory over Nazism, Italian fascism and Japanese militarism, the peace finally prevailed around the world. The Soviet Union was seething with fruitful productive work. The living standards were constantly rising. Life was becoming again pleasant, happy and much comfortable. The public respect and esteem for the leaders of the country were beyond doubt and this is the reason why it was so difficult for the soviet citizen to perceive the treacherous and subversive intentions of some of the leaders who were in the spotlight? Who could think that somebody like Nikita Khruchev was working to sell out their country to the imperialists, to overthrow the social system??

Later, the treason was been fully completed by the all those “worthy” successors of crypto-fascist revisionism, the agents of imperialism that bear the names of M. Gorbachev, B. Yeltsin, A. Yakovlev, D. Medvedev, E. Sevardnadze and Co. These agents of the class enemy within the CPSU ranks, seized offices, offended against the toiling masses in every step they take, and they transformed the heavenly society of their country into the dark hell of Dante. The outcome of this despicable treason is wretchedness in every part of the country, terror and crime reaching their climax, despair and isolation for the majority of the citizens. This was the upshot of the capitalist restoration and the New Order. We believe that history, humanity as a whole will condemn and severely punish the unprecedented treachery of working people not only of the socialist camp but also of the whole world.
We believe that all proletarians, toilers, the socialist intellectuals and fighters will always honour the Great October Revolution, focus attention on the society created by the October Revolution and that the temporary prevalence of the counter-revolution cannot delay the society’s necessary progression to communism.

There are, of course, nowadays well-meaning people who shout and yell that we have reached the end of our dreams, that we have entered an era that marks the defeat of the worker’s and communist movement, an era of despair and disappointment, of demobilisation of the proletarian classes. But the communists, as all progressive people, are well aware that capitalism is a system plagued with unresolved class contradictions, a system that gives rise to phenomena of permanent crisis and instability and shows clear signs of decay and collapse. They realise the downfall and total annihilation of capitalism is inescapable and it will be facilitated by the working class. After the Great October Revolution, this change is not any more a mere vision but a historical necessity.

Movement for the Reorganization of the Communist Party of Greece 1918-55

Read More »