Friday, December 13, 2013
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Final Resolution of the 19th Plenary of the ICMLPO
In the Middle of the World, in an atmosphere of internationalist comradeship and solidarity, the members of the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations (ICMLPO) met to share and discuss analysis and experiences. We arrived at resolutions that will contribute to the fulfillment of the historical role of the Marxist-Leninists, the revolutionaries, anti-imperialist and anti-fascist fighters, working class, oppressed peoples and youth.
On the International Situation
The Fundamental Contradictions of the Epoch Are Sharpening.
The international economic crisis that exists in some countries, particularly in Western Europe, and the economic decline of others are the clearest demonstration that the fundamental contradictions are sharpening: between capital and labor, between imperialism and the oppressed peoples and nations, between the imperialist powers and monopolies. It is a cyclical crisis that is developing on top of the worsening of the general crisis of capitalism that began a century ago.
The ideological and political struggle between the proletarian revolutionaries who are fighting for socialism, and reaction, liberalism and opportunism who defend capitalism and imperialism is also deepening.
The imperialist countries are heading the economic decline, in the first place the United States, which has a zero industrial growth. In Japan there are further declines in the economy. Several countries of the European Union are facing a recession that is striking particularly Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland and is threatening France, Belgium and others.
The bourgeois economists themselves are saying that these countries will take many years to return to pre-2008 levels and start the recovery process.
The economies called engines of growth of capitalism, China, India and Russia are in a process of economic slowdown; this situation is accentuated in Brazil, which is declining steadily.
The dependent countries of Latin America, Africa and Asia are suffering the impact of the crisis on a smaller scale, due to the high prices of raw materials, natural resources and agricultural products; they are showing an uneven growth.
The monopoly groups, the imperialist countries, the local bourgeoisies and their governments are shifting the burden of the crisis onto the working masses, the peoples and the youth.
In all countries of the world, we see the increased exploitation of the working class under the pretext of increased competitiveness; in Europe there are massive layoffs of workers, reduced wages through blackmail, etc., an increase in job precariousness and labor flexibility under different names for the sake of maximum monopoly profit.
The migrants around the world are victims of this policy, and moreover they face discrimination, xenophobia and racism; they are placed as enemies of native-born workers who blame them for rising unemployment; they are cheap labor used by the capitalists for their greater accumulation.
In the countryside the conditions of life and work are worsening as a result of the pricing policy, of the free trade agreements that benefit the agribusiness monopolies. The agricultural businesses are developing hand in hand with the growing monopolization of the land, of the agricultural production and of the commercialization based on the super-exploitation of the workers in the countryside and the imperialist dependency imposed on the majority of the countries.
The youth is affected by the restriction of public education, converting schools into producers of cheap labor power in the service of capital; huge masses of young people, including univerity graduates, are joining the millions of unemployed.
While the large financial and industrial monopolies are still being fed by public funds, the social budgets, the money intended for public health, education, housing, social security, etc. are being diminished and cut back drastically; the years needed for retirement have been increased and in some countries the decision has been made to lower wages and increase the working day.
The crisis is of such a magnitude that imperialism and the governments are implementing increasingly brutal, aggressive, exploitative and repressive policies against the working and popular masses.
The Policies of Capital Are Becoming More Authoritarian and Repressive
Along with the economic crisis there is the political crisis of the bourgeoisie, expressed in the discrediting of the institutions, of politics in general, of bourgeois democracy and the political parties in particular.
One example of this reality is the high rate of abstention in elections in many countries, the loss of confidence in the traditional political parties of the bourgeoisie, including the reformist and social-democratic parties. In several countries this situation is leading to disappointment, to the dissatisfaction of the masses, to the search for alternatives of change that are being covered by bourgeois options using the terms left, "democratic socialism" and "21st century socialism." It also makes way for new reactionary forces, in some cases fascists, fundamentalists and populists that are demagogically presented as an alternative of change for the peoples.
Besides the loss of credibility of the national bourgeois institutions should be added the loss of prestige of the international agencies of capitalism and globalization such as the IMF, WTO, NATO, EU, UN, etc.
The masses have not advanced to the point where they can fully distinguish the parties that represent their interests. This is mainly due to the influence of reactionary ideas, the ideological offensive of imperialism and the bourgeoisie so that they lose interest in the struggle for power and take up non-partyism by which the ruling groups can continue to manipulate the masses and the power. It is also due to the presence and activity of different forms of opportunism and revisionism, and, of course, to the weakness and limitations of the revolutionary left.
Another manifestation of this trend is the involution of the so-called progressive governments, particularly in Latin America, which have shown their ideological and political limitations and in their capacity as administrators of the crisis they take measures that affect the people and criminalize social protest. In some cases they use the name of the left, of the revolution and of socialism to push forward their project of capitalist modernization.
In general, we are experiencing a process of growing authoritarianism, of the development of state terrorism in the exercise of bourgeois power, the denial of national sovereignty and the right to self-determination of the peoples, the restriction of civil and democratic liberties, the criminalization of social and popular struggle and the gradual abolition of the rights and freedoms of the people won through years of struggle.
The Struggle for a Redivision of the World Is Sharpening
The inability of imperialism to resolve its crisis, the huge sacrifices of the peoples, of the working masses, forces it to seek other forms of solution. One of these is the preparation of new imperialist wars, the significant increase in budgets for military spending, the occupation by troops of the countries rich in natural resources and located in geostrategic areas such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Congo, Mali, etc. These are pushing forward new military aggressions.
This situation is particularly evident in Africa, a continent with vast natural and agricultural resources that imperialism is using to refine the technology in order to try to get out of its crisis, and in the Middle East for the control and exploitation of the energy resources.
In these regions of the world the contradictions and rivalries between the imperialist powers and monopolies are evident. They show the tendency to a greater polarization between the United States and the European Union on the one hand and China on the other; Russia is joining the fight for its own interests, while the BRICS is projected as a new bloc for world domination.
In Syria a political and military conflict has been developing that involves the entire population, it has led to a reactionary civil war that is the pretext for imperialist and Zionist intervention. The weight of international public opinion, the particular interests of the various imperialist countries, the denunciation by democratic sectors and even by several governments and individuals, among others, has momentarily halted this intervention. The U.S. was only able to get France, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to join in this war of aggression. We emphasize that in this conflict British imperialism does not support the U.S. after several years of being its unconditional ally.
At the same time this showed a more active role for Russia on the diplomatic and military level, which in fact turned it, together with the U.S., into the arbiters of the conflict in Syria, ignoring the peoples and workers who will have to subordinate themselves to the plans of the foreign forces. The principle of self-determination of the peoples is once again being mocked and trampled upon by the imperialist countries.
The economic crisis, the super-exploitation of the working masses, as well as the politics of imperialist war and plunder is greatly increasing the forced and massive migration of millions of human beings who leave their country fleeing war, violence and misery and are looking for a better future. In this effort they are finding the borders closed, hundreds die in the crossing and, if they succeed in reaching their destination they are the object of the most cruel oppression and exploitation, they are abused and mistreated by the very imperialist powers who have caused the ruin of their countries.
The events in Syria, other events in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, the expansion of the Chinese economy are sharpening the inter-imperialist contradictions. China is gaining ground with an aggressive export policy, with important investments in the dependent countries, by holding U.S. Treasury bonds (it has become the largest creditor of the U.S.); moreover it is working to enhance its military apparatus.
It is no accident that the United States has made a priority of the Asian region as a strategic area in which it is concentrating its military force to maintain its position of supremacy.
The Response of the Workers, Peoples and Youth Is Growing Significantly
Imperialism and the bourgeoisie are placing the burden of the crisis onto the shoulders of the workers, peoples and youths in all countries, both imperialist and dependent.
But these people are not remaining passive; they are developing their struggle and organization. In this regard there stand out the continuing and important battles of the working class and youth in Turkey, Brazil, Egypt, Tunisia, Portugal, China, Bangladesh, Colombia, Chile, Greece and Spain, among others.
The anti-system actions of large sections of the youth and the middle strata in various regions are joining the struggle of the workers, struggles that have gone beyond economic demands.
In recent months there have been gigantic waves of the masses who have accelerated and protested against the establishment; although they do not have a revolutionary direction they open the perspective of a new situation, they encourage the progressive and revolutionary forces.
In short, in all countries, the peoples are expressing their discontent, they are protesting and looking for a way that leads to the solution of their serious problems.
An important struggle of the workers, peoples and youth against dictatorships and tyranny has taken shape in North Africa and the Middle East; in Tunisia and Egypt the struggle of resistance against imperialism and reaction is growing despite all the resources used to try to placate the struggles and divert them from their revolutionary path. Forms of this reactionary process are the utilization of Islamic fundamentalists, as well as coups and direct military interventions.
The ICMLPO is part of the workers and peoples who are fighting for their rights, for their social and national liberation. We are taking up our obligation to be where the battles are waged; we support them so that they may head towards their final objective. In particular we support the struggle waged by the people of Tunisia, by our fraternal party and the Popular Front to achieve the objectives of the revolution and people's power.
The Tasks of rhe Communists in the Present Situation
In these stormy waters of the class struggle, it is up to us to develop policies and tasks that respond to the following questions: What is the social force that is able to defeat imperialism, the bourgeoisie and reaction? Who should lead the large and small waves of struggle? What kind of society do the workers need to replace this dying system?
To provide an answer to these questions it is necessary to consolidate, develop and build the Communist Party as the vanguard party of the working class, which is deeply and permanently engaged in the crucible of the struggle of the masses, in all cases, whether organized or spontaneous; we must work to unify these struggles and direct them towards the social revolution.
We intend to strengthen the mobilization and organization of the exploited and oppressed masses in all areas, using all forms of struggle and organization that correspond to the concrete situations.
It is of fundamental importance to foster the unity of the working class and the peasantry, as well as of all sectors oppressed by capitalism and other pre-capitalist forms of exploitation, under the leadership of the working class and its Party. We emphasize the need to highlight the best efforts to clarify the question of the popular front as well as push forward for the work of building it in concrete conditions.
We must pay special attention to work with the youth, who burst out vigorously in the social and political fight, to work to give them a revolutionary direction, and to work among the working class women and women from the popular strata who constitute more than half of mankind, who suffer the effects of layoffs, job insecurity, etc. and have a great revolutionary potential.
In the discussion on the work with working class women and women from the popular strata there we emphasize the need to build a broad movement of democratic, anti-imperialist and revolutionary women with its own objectives.
At this time our efforts are directed to organizing and strengthening popular fronts as a necessary tool to link and mobilize the broad masses against the plans of imperialism and reaction. Fronts and coalitions that will form around a unified program that defends the interests of the working class, the working masses and the peoples.
The lessons of Marxism-Leninism and the practice of our parties teach us that we must fight to the end against all manifestations of sectarianism, of deviations from the right or left, maintaining firmness of principles and flexibility in tactics.
To fulfill the tasks it is necessary to fight ideologically and politically against imperialism and the bourgeoisie, as well as against the positions and practices of the collaborators and conciliators, which affect the workers and people by revisionism, opportunism, reformism and other forms that confuse and divert them from the goal of the social revolution as well as of the popular democratic revolutions.
We must organize a major offensive on what the left, the social revolution, socialism and communism mean. We must widely disseminate the proposals that we communists have in different realities, confronting what capitalism and its representatives have done to the workers, especially today, when they are trying to reverse a century of social and democratic gains.
In 2014 it will be 20 years since the ICMLPO launched its proclamation to the world, its commitment to forge the unity of the international communist movement, to contribute decisively to making Marxism-Leninism a material force of the workers and peoples to defeat imperialism and capitalism and establish socialism and communism as a society of full freedom and prosperity for the peoples.
The ICMLPO is fulfilling its role with determination, with important results that are still insufficient. Today we reaffirm our revolutionary commitment to consolidating and broadening it to ensure an internationalist, revolutionary leadership for the struggles of the working class, the popular masses and the oppressed peoples of the world.
Ecuador, October 2013
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Greek unions call general strike November 6
Greece's two main unions GSEE (the General Confederation of Greek Workers) - ADEDY (the Civil Servants' Confederation) have called a 24-hour general strike November 6 to protest government plans to pass new austerity measures.
The Movement for the Reorganisation of the KKE 1918-55 supports the strike and has released posters, flyers, etc. to support the struggle.
Monday, October 07, 2013
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Greek civil servants call 2-day strike September 24-25
Greece's main public sector trade union, ADEDY, launched a call Friday for a two-day strike in protest against job lay-offs included in an economic overhaul demanded by the country's creditors.
ADEDY, in a statement, criticised the government's "submission" to proposals from the European Union and International Monetary Fund that would "destroy the public sector and the welfare state".
The strike action was called for September 24 and 25.
The Movement for the Reorganisation of the KKE 1918-55 supports the strike and has released posters, flyers, etc. to support the struggle.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Poll: 47% in Greece have NEGATIVE opinion on EU/Euro
New poll presented on Greek TV channel “SKAI” shows that 47% of the Greeks have negative opinion on EU/Euro (September 2013) compared to 31% last year.
Friday, September 06, 2013
Wednesday, September 04, 2013
Reactionary anti-communist bourgeois theories that conceal the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union (1953-1990)
The violent overthrow of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat from the traitorous clique of Khrushchev-Brezhnev-Mikoyan-Suslov, etc. in 1953 after the death-murder of Joseph Stalin (on 5th March 1953), ushered in a completely new period in the history of the Soviet Union: the period of the reactionary process of destruction of socialism-communism and the progressive restoration of capitalism completed in the mid-60s - when the most comprehensive capitalist economic reform was implemented (Plenum in September 1965) – with the complete elimination of socialism in that country.
In the period after 1953, when the economic reforms of capitalist character were gradually introduced in, the still socialist, economy of the Soviet Union under the direct guidance of Khrushchev-Brezhnev bourgeois social-democratic CPSU, two reactionary anti-communist bourgeois theories were developed on international scale that attempted to disguise this regressive process i.e. the gradual but, in due course, the complete all-round restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union: the one was proposed by the traditional bourgeois anti-communist defenders of capitalism-imperialism. The theory of "convergence" of the two opposite economic-social systems in general and more particularly those seen during the historical period after 1953, claiming, in other words, that the "socialism" of the Soviet Union and the capitalism of the western countries were mutually approaching to each other. The second theory was put forward by the anti-communist Khrushchev-Brezhnev revisionist social democrats representing the new bourgeoisie of the Soviet Union (originally under development and subsequently fully shaped bourgeoisie): the theory of the so-called "developed socialism".
Both of these theories concealed for decades the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union because they presented the objective historical social-economic reality in the Soviet Union and other revisionist countries at that time (1953-1990), primarily in the field of state power and the ideology as "Socialism" (!) showcasing the reactionary bourgeois-fascist power (prohibition of works of Stalin, etc.) of Khrushchev -Brezhnev-Gorbachev period 1953-1990 as the "power of the working class"(!) and claiming that the dominant ideology was "Marxism-Leninism", although it had already been replaced from Khrushchevian revisionism (a variant of bourgeois ideology) and number of other traditional bourgeois trends, including the ultra-reactionary philosophy of Nietzsche, German Romanticism, etc. In field of economics, they presented any "changes" in the Soviet economy as an indication that the two allegedly "different" economic-social systems come close to one another. From these views flows directly and explicitly hide the regressive process of restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union - a phenomenon that was discovered and denounced from the outset only by the revolutionary Marxists who analyzed it, not completely, but at least in its basic aspects*
Moreover, the theory of "convergence" put forward by the western bourgeois reaction, and had supporters even in the revisionist countries of the reinstated capitalism, as admitted by revisionist theorists**, and the theory of "developed socialism" put forward by the Khrushchevians were both anti-communist reactionary bourgeois theories because, during the period of their dominance (1955-1990), they were directed against the communist perspective of the Proletariat, obscured the communist prospect, presenting the restored capitalism of the Soviet Union as 'the communist' future, but at the same time they were in total breach with the objective historic progress of society toward socialism-communism.
Both of these reactionary, anti-communist theories dominated for decades the ideological "pseudo"-conflicts and controversies inside the ranks of imperialism, between the Western capitalist camp led by the imperialist U.S. and the eastern camp of reinstated capitalism during the Khruschev-Brezhnev-Gorbachev period led by the capitalist-imperialist Soviet Union (1953-1990). Having disoriented the international workers' and communist movement for many decades under the appearance - from both sides - of a conflict between "capitalism" - "socialism", these theories were buried under the ruins of the collapse of the revisionist capitalist camp and the final dissolution of the Soviet Union***.
The class character and content of the two theories is based on the defence of capitalism: for the theory of “convergence” it was traditional capitalism of the Western countries, while for the theory of “developed socialism” it was the restored capitalism of the Soviet Union and the other revisionist countries.
A. The reactionary anticommunist bourgeois theory of "convergence" capitalism-socialism
From the mid-1950s, among the bourgeois defenders of capitalism began to emerge various views suggesting a "new phase", a "new stage", in the development of the society. These views gave rise subsequently to the theories of the so-called "industrial society", or the theory of "convergence" of the two economic-social systems (capitalism-socialism). Initially, the main representatives of these theories were Raymond Aron (French), Jan Tinbergen (Dutch) and later John Kenneth Galbraith (U.S.) with his work: "The New industrial State" (Boston 1967), etc.
First, let us note that the term "convergence", in addition to being deceptive, has been transferred from the natural sciences (geometry, biology, medicine, etc.) to the field of social sciences to describe a kind of "synthesis" between capitalism-socialism and a supposedly "inevitable process of amalgamation of the two economic-social systems in general. Yet, we should note that the theory of "convergence" is not identical with the theory of "industrial society", whose core position is also the denial of the deterministic replacement of capitalism from socialism-communism, but it results from it.
Raymond Aron formally expressed these views in his work: "die Entwicklung der Industriegesellschaft und der sozialen Stratification" (1957), although it followed his earlier book "L'Opium des intellectuels" (The Opium of The Intellectuals) (Paris 1955), in which he declared that "In the West, the controversy between capitalism and socialism loses its actual intensity" and his Sorbonne lectures (1955-1956), later included in his work: «Dixhuit lecons sur la societe industrielle» (Paris 1962), in which he attempted for the first time to formulate the key features of 'industrial society' and present "socialism" and "capitalism" "as two versions of the same kind of industrial society ... the Soviet and capitalist societies are only two species of the same genus, or two versions of the same social type, namely, the progressive industrial society "(Greek 1972: p.46-47), emphasizing, at the same time, the main purpose of this "theoretical", reactionary, bourgeois and anti-communist approach i.e. "to avoid ahead of the opposition socialism-capitalism "(!)
Among the most important representatives of the theory of "convergence" in the economic and sociological field were Jan Tinbergen (economist), Pitirin A. Sorokin (Russian-born American sociologist) and Walter Buckingham (American economist).
Since most of, if not all, subsequent versions of the theory of "convergence" have incorporated the anti-scientific views of Walt Whitman Rostow’s famous anti-communist work: «The Stages of Economic Growth - A Non communist Manifesto» (1960, German 1961), we need to make a very brief reference to it. Rostow was had an ultra-reactionary adviser of the most aggressive militaristic circles of the American imperialism during the John F. Kennedy-Lyndon Johnson period, (within a very short time, his book was translated in 17 languages, and Rostow himself was hailed as the theorist -savior" of capitalism).
Rostow’s infamous “five stages of development” (= "traditional society", "preconditions for take-off", "take-off", "drive to maturity", and "high mass consumption. In German: "traditionelle Gesellschaft", "Anlaufperiode", "Aufstiegperiode", "Reifestadium" ,"Zeitalter des Massenkonsums", German p.18-27) – that were distinguished from one another according to the different level of development of production and consumption (!) - represent a pseudoscientific construction, because firstly, they have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual historical evolution of society, and secondly, because this completely arbitrary construction has completely omitted the "productive forces-productive relationship" and the dialectical relationship between them, the "property relations" and the corresponding "class relations", class interests, class conflicts, etc., that would allow a scientific approach to the historical progress of society as successive economic-social formations. Of course, the term "class struggle" is also not mentioned, because, as known, it is the driving force of historical development and all revolutionary changes in society.
The omission of all these does not mean at all that Rostow makes no attempt to provide a scientific-like form to his pseudoscientific construction by creating the misleading impression that he supposedly "accepts" the Marxist concept of "productive forces". However, the theory of "five stages" is based only on "technique" and it is, thu, in contrast with Marx who notes regarding this question: "Social relations are closely linked to the productive forces. By attaining new productive forces, people change their mode of production and by changing the mode of production, how to earn their living, they change all their social relations. The hand mill yields a society with the feudal ruler, the steam mill yields a society featuring the industrial capitalist… The production relations of every society form a whole” (MARX / ENGELS: Bd. 4, p.130).
In the description of the last "stage", i.e. the "era of mass consumption", the main PURPOSE of production in capitalism is completely transformed to its opposite: instead of a production system for PROFIT (especially for maximum profit), capitalism is presented as production system for consumption, i.e. for the alleged "satisfaction" of the needs of “all” classes in a bourgeois society. The maximization of profits is not related of course to the "nature" - "substance" of a nonexistent, abstract "man," not even with the "psychology" of the bourgeoisie as a social class in general (anti-Marxist approaches) but it is connected, instead, to the objective economic laws underlying capitalism, in particular the Law of SURPLUS VALUE and the law of capitalist accumulation.
In this essay-manifesto, Rostow calls Marx "a 19th century romantic" (p. 186). When he "evaluates" the contribution of Marx, he argues that supposedly "nothing really important in Marx can be found after the year 1848" (p. 187), while "communism" is characterized as "a transition disease" (p.193). In this formulation, we see, in embryonic form, Rostow’s first attempt to “biologise” social life, socio-economic-political phenomena and social sciences that is promoted later in his work: «Politics and the Stages of Growth», Cambridge 1971, p 410). In this book, a failed effort is made to revive certain old views on "biologisation" of social life, in other words Rostow searches for a "biological science of politics", promotes a "fusion" of "political science with psychiatry," and proclaims that "political science may be, at best, only a variant of biological science and art."
Besides the subjective-idealistic approach, the "scientific" value of Rostow's is such that he achieves the impossible: he includes in the concept of «traditional society» three (3) modes of production: the primitive communism, slavery and feudalism, while the two others, "capitalism" and "socialism-communism", are presented as variations of a "single industrial society". These are completely unfounded and unsubstantiated claims on a theoretical level. Worse still: they have no connection whatsoever with the actual historical development of society.
Nevertheless, Rostow’s book, bearing the characteristic subtitle “A non communist manifesto”, has been widely used by the international bourgeois-imperialist reaction to invalidate Marxism – it was showcased as a “counterweight” to the “Communist Manifesto” - and more specifically the Marxist theory of the development of social-economic formations. Even Rostow himself does not deny this fact when he writes that that the “stages” theory is “an alternative account to the Marxian theory of modern history”: “Alternative zu der Marxschen Theorie der modernen Geschichte” (p. 16), a view presented in the last chapter (p. 174-198). Needless to note that, despite the bourgeois reaction’s boasting that the theory of Rostow succeeds in "refuting" revolutionary Marxism, this extremely naïve and unreasonably ambitious endeavour is a grand fiasco and expresses the profound crisis of bourgeois "thought" in that historical period.
One of the earliest representatives of the theory of "convergence", the American economist Walter Buckingham: «theoretical economic system» (New York 1958), argues that the capitalist system has radically changed, the “non-capitalist systems are still present”, "and that in the future a "single economic system" will emerge through the mutual convergence of capitalism and socialism. In relation to the ongoing capitalist economic reforms in the Soviet Union, there was an article from the Executive-Director of the U.S. Congressional «Joint Economic Committee» Dr. Grover W. Ensley in 1957 – after coming back from Moscow where he met Soviet economists – with the feature title "The revolution in the economic thought of the Soviet Union" in which, among other things, he wrote that, according to Soviet economists, productivity growth will be achieved through the " Profit motiv" (in: «Nation's Business» 1/1957 and German: «Die Revolution im wirtschaftlichen Denken der Sowjetunion» in: «Konjunkturpolitik» 5-6/1957, pp. 301-314).
Pitirin A. Sorokin developed his views on the US-Soviet Union convergence in the sociological and cultural sector in his article «Soziologische und kulturelle Annaeherung zwischen den Verinigten Staaten und der Sowjetunion» (Zeitschrift fuer Politik » 4/1960, p.341)
Jan Tinbergen wrote his famous article in 1960 entitled: «Do Communist and Free Economies Show a Converging Pattern» (in: Soviet Studies, Vol. 12, Oxford 1960/61, p.333 and in German: «Kommt es zu einer Annaeherung zwischen den kommunistischen und den freiheitlichen Wirtschaftsordnungen?» in «Hamburger Jahrbuch fuer Wirtschafts-und Gesellschaftspolitik » (1963) pp. 11-20), where he put forward the view that both systems “change”, that “there are certain trends of convergent development”, and that “these changes involve, in certain respects, a convergent development”, “changes” that lead to a desired "optimal, mixed economic system". He had already published in 1959 his work entitled: «The Theory of the Optimum Regime» (in Jan Tinbergen: «Selected Papers», Amsterdam 1959) in which thoughts about a "perfect economic status" were developed for the first time. This was also argued in other articles later, including:: «Die Rolle der Planungstechniken bei einer Annaeherung der Strukturen in Ost und West», 1966, etc. Taking into account all the capitalist economic reforms implemented in the Soviet Union, Tibergen says in this article: "Since the objectives of social and economic policy of the West and the East - in my opinion – come ever closer to each other, and among many structures only one is excellent, the two structures will gradually fuse into this Optimum. This kind of convergence will be achieved through a better knowledge of the social forces and the application of planning techniques respectively". A year later, he wrote: "the systems of West and East are dynamic: they are undergoing constant changes ... generally these changes are converging, thus the differences between the two systems are reducing” (Jan Tinbergen: "Roads to the Ideal Socio-Economic System» in:« The Oriental Economist», February 1967, p.94).
The reactionary anti-communist theory of “convergence” presents three basic claims: a) a general claim according to which the two social-economic systems, “capitalism” and “socialism-communism” will “converge” in the future to form an alleged “unified” industrial system, b) one specific claim according to which Soviet Union’s “socialism” in the 1950’s and 1960’s borrows certain “elements” from capitalism (“profit”, “interest”, “capitalist price of production” etc) while the capitalism of the western countries borrows from “socialism” “elements” like “planning” leading to the convergence of the two systems towards each other that will result in the formation of a “joint” “capitalist-socialist” system(!) c) a second specific claim according to which this “unified-” economic system will constitute the future “ideal economic formation”(!).
A few short but essential comments that rebut the totally unfounded and unscientific claim of the reactionary bourgeois theory of “convergence” from the viewpoint of revolutionary Marxism, i.e. Leninism-Stalinism.
1. The theory of “convergence” is based on a subjective-idealist approach to the study of social-economic formations and on various unscientific views of vulgar bourgeois political economy that has lost its scientific character long time ago: i.e. “Thenceforth, the class struggle, practically as well as theoretically, took on more and more outspoken and threatening forms. It sounded the knell of scientific bourgeois economy. It was thenceforth no longer a question, whether this theorem or that was true, but whether it was useful to capital or harmful, expedient or inexpedient, politically dangerous or not. In place of disinterested inquirers, there were hired prize fighters; in place of genuine scientific research, the bad conscience and the evil intent of apologetic… It is a declaration of bankruptcy by bourgeois economy (Marx). And elsewhere: “vulgar bourgeois economy becomes more and more openly apologetic… Its last form is the professorial form… Such essays appear only when the course of political economy as a science has reached an end ,representing at the same time the grave of this science” (Marx).
These scientific evaluation from Marx allowed Rudolf Hilferding, when he was still a Marxist in the beginning of the 20th century, to conclude his very important polemical article «Boehm-Bawerks Marx-Kritik» (Marx-Studien, Wien 1904) with the famous sentence: “the last word of the bourgeois political economy is its self-annulment”: «diese oekonomische Theorie bedeutet die Leugnung der Oekonomie; das letzte Wort, das die buergerliche Nationaloekonomie dem wissenschaftlichen Sozialismus antwortet, ist die Selbstaufhebung der Nationaloekonomie».
2. The general claim about the “convergence” of the two social-economic systems, “capitalism” and “socialism-communism”, was a completely unfounded and arbitrary one – it can never be proved – because they are diametrically opposite systems. Each one has its own fundamental attributes in all sectors (economic, political and ideological) and develops according to its own objective laws both conforming to the inevitable general historical course of the replacement of capitalism from the classless communist society by means of a violent Proletarian Revolution. Moreover the assertion made by this reactionary theory regarding the “convergence” of the two diametrically opposite systems has also been refuted by the objective historical fact of the simultaneous presence of capitalism and socialism (the first stage of communism), during the existence of the latter for more than 35 years in the Soviet Union of Lenin and Stalin without being any sort of “convergence” between the two social-economic formations.
3. The first specific claim about the “convergence” between the “socialism” of the Soviet Union and the other eastern countries, during the Khrushchev-Brezhnev-Gorbachev period, with the capitalism of the western countries towards a “joint” unified system which would combine the positive features of “socialism” and “capitalism” was from the very beginning completely unfounded because what happened in reality was not the “exchange” of elements between one system and the other but, on the contrary, something totally different. And this was the restoration of capitalism, as confirmed by the subsequent historical course of the Soviet Union, with the introduction of capitalist features (“profit”, “interest”, “capitalist price of production”) in the socialist economy of the Soviet Union by means of the capitalist economic reforms that were implemented – after the death-murder of Stalin and the triumph of the Khrushchev’s revisionist counter-revolution – under the direct guidance of the bourgeois CPSU. The goal of these reforms was the elimination of socialism in the sphere of economy and the gradual restoration of capitalism that was completed in the middle 1960’s with the more comprehensive capitalist reforms approved by the Central Committee Plenum of CPSU in September of 1965. In the political level, the Proletarian Dictatorship had already been overthrown while in the ideological level, the bourgeois counter-revolutionary ideology of Krsushchevism was dominant. It was this restored capitalism that collapsed at the end of 1980’s (1990-1991) bringing about the complete and final dissolution of the imperialist Soviet Union.
4. In addition, the second specific claim made by the “convergence” theory about the formation of a “unified system” which would evolve to an “excellent economic system” was not only unfounded and unproved but it was consciously misleading because what happened was NOT the mutual approach between the economies of the capitalist countries and those of the revisionist countries to form a supposed “unified”, let alone “optimal”, economic system but, on the contrary, the inevitable regression of the Soviet Union to the capitalist exploitative system after the overthrow of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, in 1953.
5. Because the reactionary and anti-communist “convergence” theory misleadingly regarded the restored capitalism of the Soviet Union of the Khrushchev-Brezhnev-Gorbachev period as “socialism”, it discredited the socialism-communism built in that country during the period of Lenin-Stalin – according to the Marxist conception of communism. Socialism-communism was thus presented as a system, which, not being able allegedly to work on its own basis and with its own economic laws, was compelled to “borrow” capitalist elements (“profit”, “interest”, “capitalist price of production”). In other words, it was presented as an allegedly “failed” and “bankrupt” economic system in an attempt to “prove” the nonexistent superiority of capitalism over socialism-communism.
6. By presenting the Soviet Union’s regression to capitalism as “socialism”, the “convergence” theory deliberately confused the communist viewpoint of the proletariat for many decades. Instead of communism, the proletariat was made to envision the exact opposite: the reactionary process of capitalist restoration as this was going on in the Soviet Union during that period (1953-1990).
7. The “convergence” theory denied the inevitable replacement of capitalism by socialism-communism and the laws underlying this change by attacking the Marxist theory of social development seen as a necessary succession of social-economic formations.
8. The “convergence” theory rejected the character of the 20th century as the historical era of transition from capitalism to socialism-communism. Instead, it adopted the unfounded claim that the 20th century was the era of the “unified industrial society” and the alleged “capitalism-socialism fusion”. Both had absolutely nothing to do with the reality of that historical period because the only thing that happened then – that was confirmed historically – was the return of the Soviet Union to capitalism.
Finally, by supporting the view that the two diametrically opposed social-economic systems were “approaching each other” and converged towards an “optimal economic system”, the “convergence” theory denied the irreconcilable contradiction between capitalism and socialism-communism and attempted without success to corroborate this arbitrary claim also made by the theory of “unified industrial society”, as formulated by one of its chief representatives, Raymon Aron, namely: to get around in advance the socialism-capitalism contradiction.
Closing, it is necessary to point out that the aim of this very short and incomplete article was not to shed light on all, or even most of, sides of the reactionary, anti-communist “convergence” theory but to show what is relevant to our main discussion, i.e. the concealment of the regressive process of capitalist restoration in the Soviet Union and the other eastern countries.
* The initial scientific prediction and the later evaluation made by the revolutionary Marxists, i.e. of Leninists-Stalinists regarding the return of the Soviet Union to capitalism from the time when the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was overthrown, after the death-murder of Stalin, was confirmed by: a) the complete restoration of capitalism in the middle of 1960’s and b) the subsequent overall historical course of the Soviet Union until the total collapse of the restored capitalism at the end of 1980’s and the final breakup of the Soviet Union (1990-1991).
** Like, for example, the Soviet L. Leontiev, (Moscow, 1972) who mentions: “an unprecedented exaltation of the convergence theory”, the East-German H. Meissner (Berlin-DDR, 1969): "It is not surprising that these views (he means concepts of the theory of "convergence") were endorsed by some socialist theorists whose Marxist foundation was not so stable ...", the Czechoslovak J. Filipec in: Freyer/Bossle/Filipec (Mainz 1966) and another Soviet, Lew Alter, who admits that the theory of “convergence” is based on new phenomena («Pr. d. Fr. u. d. S.», 9/1968).
*** The true historical course of the Soviet Union during the period 1953-1990 did not confirm any of the two bourgeois anti-communist theories, i.e. the theories of “convergence” and of “developed socialism” but, on the contrary, refuted both. Not only the claim that “socialism” was built in the Soviet Union during the Khrushchev -Brezhnev-Gorbachev period (1953-1990) but also the other claim that the soviet economy was “approaching” the economy of the Western capitalist countries both converging at an “optimal economic system”, collapsed “overnight” simultaneously with the fall and the final dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1990-1991 exactly because none of the two claims was realized. As mentioned before, what did happen was the return of the Soviet Union to capitalism, as predicted, albeit incompletely and along general lines, right from the beginning (since the middle 1950’s) by the revolutionary communists.
However, despite the complete refutation of these two reactionary anti-communist theories, the discussion about the causes that brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union – especially the discussion about the character of the post-1953 reforms, without which is obviously impossible to determine the nature of the soviet economy of that period – does not have only historical interest but it is entirely timely and of great importance for the correct orientation of the working and communist movement, i.e. for its socialist-communist prospect because it is directly related to the Marxist (or anti-Marxist) conception of socialism.
To be continued
Sunday, September 01, 2013
Greek civil servants call 2-day strike September 18-19
Greece's main public sector trade union, ADEDY, launched a call Friday for a two-day strike in protest against job lay-offs included in an economic overhaul demanded by the country's creditors.
ADEDY, in a statement, criticised the government's "submission" to proposals from the European Union and International Monetary Fund that would "destroy the public sector and the welfare state".
The strike action was called for September 18 and 19.
The Movement for the Reorganisation of the KKE 1918-55 supports the strike and has released posters, flyers, etc. to support the struggle.
The Awakening of the Struggle of the Peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean Demands a Revolutionary Leadership
Statement of the Meeting of Marxist-Leninist Parties of Latin America and the Caribbean
The Awakening of the Struggle of the Peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean Demands a Revolutionary Leadership
Latin America is the scene of a new wave of social protest. It is the response that the workers, the youth and the peoples are making to the unfulfilled promises, the anti-popular policies, the rampant corruption in the upper echelons of governments, the handing over of the natural resources to foreign capital, in short, to the old and new economic and political programs that seek to affirm the rule of capital.
The current struggle overcomes the temporary state of decreased level of struggle of the peoples that occurred, particularly in those countries in which the so-called "progressive" governments emerged that generated expectations and hopes that things would change in favor of the workers and peoples, but after a few years we are witnessing processes that show them to be instruments in the service of one or another bourgeois faction and of foreign capital.
Not surprisingly, we find a kind of political agreement among virtually all governments in the region in key aspects of economic and political management as well as on the implementation of tax measures that punish the working classes with direct and indirect taxes, the support of extractive industry as the way to obtain economic resources, the implementation of reforms in various spheres such as labor that aim to legalize mechanisms of capitalist super-exploitation and to affect the right of the workers to free trade union organization.
They also agree on the implementation of measures of social control, through judicial reforms and the adoption and implementation of laws that, in the name of public security, essentially aim at the criminalization of social protest.
Through clearly neoliberal programs in some cases, and through "progressives" social programs that even speak of revolution and socialism in others, the bourgeois factions in power are interested in pursuing a process of capitalist modernization in the region that would allow them to obtain higher levels of accumulation, and to count on better resources to intervene in the world capitalist market. In this process, we note the loss of political space by U.S. imperialism, which has traditionally considered Latin America and the Caribbean as its back yard, and we find the aggressive penetration of Chinese imperialist capital. Thus, in several countries, we are faced with a kind of renegotiation of foreign dependence.
In the midst of a severe economic crisis that shook the global economy, the countries in this region were able to avoid some of its effects due to high prices of raw materials produced here, as well as certain established tax policies that have allowed most of the governments to count on sufficient economic resources to develop a social and material project that, in the minds of broad sectors of the population, have created the fiction that we are indeed living in times of change, putting their spirit of protests and struggle to sleep.
However, this situation is changing. The repressed dissatisfaction and the desire for change in millions of workers, youths, women, peasants, etc. are making themselves felt and breaking out.
The struggle that the Brazilian youths and people have been carrying out these days, which in two weeks brought more than 2 million people into the streets and won victories in several states, shows us this. It is not the 20 cents [the increase in bus fare that sparked the Brazilian protests – translator’s note] that stimulates this whole fight! The people are fed up with corruption, low wages and the handing over of the oil resources to foreign capital; they want hospitals, jobs, schools and decent housing; they reject the policy of privatization; they repudiate the spending of millions of dollars on the World Cup from which small local groups and various foreign monopolies will reap huge profits. The youth took to the streets overcoming repression and the supposedly conciliatory discourse of the government and the warning to be careful because protest can lead to a coup and the right, by means of which the government wanted to prevent the right to protest.
For months, Chilean youth have been carrying on a massive and militant struggle. They are raising concrete demands around educational issues and at the same time they are clashing with the government of Sebastian Piñera. This fight has motivated other social sectors to fight for their own demands, causing a political crisis that forecasts the loss by the forces that are now in the government in the upcoming presidential election.
In Argentina the struggle of the urban and agricultural workers, the youth, the state employees and the unemployed is also gaining strength.
In several countries, such as Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador and Colombia the fights against the extractive policies, particularly against open pit and large-scale mining that cause enormous damage to nature and the peoples of these regions and are a source of millions in profits to foreign capitalist enterprises, are taking shape and gaining strength. They are also demanding better living conditions, access to health care, education, continuation of democratic rights and are condemning the criminalization of social protest.
In Central America, the struggles of the peasants and residents of popular neighborhoods (Honduras), of retirees (Nicaragua), of state employees (Costa Rica), etc. are also taking place.
In the Dominican Republic the struggle of teachers for the implementation of the state budget for education, as well as the popular mobilization against foreign mining companies that are taking the country's wealth, and against the scandalous corruption at the highest levels of government, stand out.
The teachers, the student youth and the workers of several state companies in Mexico have been at the head of major combat actions against both the current and the former government, pawns of the neoliberal IMF policies.
The political struggle in Venezuela, in which broad contingents of the masses are involved, is shown particularly in the defense of the gains achieved during the government of Hugo Chavez, in the confrontation with the right-wing that is trying to end the process taking place, and in the demand that deeper social and political measures be taken to benefit the workers and people.
The protest actions that are taking place in Latin America, together with those in Europe, in northern Africa and other parts of the world, show us a world in upheaval.
In these circumstances, we Marxist-Leninist communist parties present our policies and energies to build up revolutionary forces. In many of the fights described above we have been present, playing our role; however we are aware that we need to develop our abilities much further in order to lead those fights along the path that leads to the triumph of the revolution and socialism.
As a result of a major offensive promoted by imperialism, by various right-wing sectors, by revisionism and opportunism, the workers and peoples show a strong ideological acceptance that leads them to trust the discourse and social programs that do not go beyond the scope of reformism and bourgeois democracy.
We are working to reverse this situation and to win the masses towards revolutionary politics, to strategic proposals and those that we are putting forward in the present situation. For that purpose we will increase our efforts in propaganda actions and mass work.
We will continue fighting together with our people, contending for political leadership and directing them towards new, higher struggles for their material and political demands, against imperialist interference and in order to play the role of the basic revolutionary force to which history has entrusted them.
We will provide the force to the movement promoting its unity, both in the social and popular movement, as well as at the level of political organizations of the left.
Our commitment to the revolution and socialism raises the need for us to more rapidly achieve the strengthening and development of our party structure. The political circumstances demand from our organizations greater skill in developing policies that will be embraced by the masses, but we also need sufficient force for their materialization. We are working for this, in order to establish our position as revolutionary vanguard.
The workers and the people of the Americas and the world are challenging the rulers, they are seeking change, they are fighting for it; we Marxist-Leninists have the responsibility to fight together with them and lead these changes to fruition, to the triumph of the revolution and socialism.
Quito, July 2013
Revolutionary Communist Party (Brazil)
Communist Party of Colombia (Marxist-Leninist)
Communist Party of Labor – Dominican Republic
Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador
Communist Party of Mexico (Marxist-Leninist)
Peruvian Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist)
Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Venezuela
Friday, August 30, 2013
The restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union (1953-1990)
At "Unity and Struggle" issue 23 (November 2011) we published an article with the title The working class in the Khrushchev-Brezhnev period was no longer the owner of the means of production
At "Unity and Struggle" issue 24 (May 2012) we published the second part with the title In the commodity economy of the Soviet Union, labor power had been anew converted to commodity
At "Unity and Struggle" issue 25 (October 2012) we published the third part with the title The commodity economy of the Soviet Union in the Khrushchev-Brezhnev period: a complete and permanent capitalist economy / The capitalist economy of the Soviet Union in the Khrushchev-Brezhnev period in prolonged stagnation and deep crisis
At "Unity and Struggle" issue 26 (May 2013) we published the third part with the title The capitalist reforms in the Soviet Union and the bourgeois theories of “socialism”
Soon the fifth part will be published. The title is
Reactionary anti-communist bourgeois theories that conceal the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union (1953-1990)
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Worker-activist Afshin Osanlou fell victim to the criminal regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Worker-activist Afshin Osanlou fell victim to the criminal regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Condemn the regime of Iran for this hideous crime!
Dear Comrades,
The regime of the Islamic Republic committed another crime. Afshin Osanlou, trade unionist and political prisoner in the notorious Rajaei Shahr prison fell victim to the regime of Iran in June 2013. The capitalist regime of the Islamic Republic announced his death on June 22, 2013, claiming it was due to heart attack. The family members of Afshin and his prison-mates have said that Afshin had no history of heart problem and the nurses at the hospital have announced that he had died long before the security forced of the Islamic Republic brought him to the hospital. What is clear is that Afshin has lost his life in bloody claws of the Islamic Republic. The regime of Iran is directly responsible for the death of Afshin Osanlou.
Adshin Osanlou, 42-year old, fired bus driver of Tehran Vahed Bus Transit Company, inter-city bus driver, truck driver, and a member of the founding committee of the Truck Drivers Syndicate was arrested in 2009 by the security-intelligence forces of the Islamic Republic in Tehran because of his trade union activities , and was taken to Evin prison. In the prison, Afshin goes under severe physical and mental torture and was falsely charged with conspiracy and action against “national security”. The regime of Iran sentenced him to 5 years prison term. Afshin was transferred to Rajaei Shahr prison after 3 years and was finishing his term.
Dear Comrades,
Tens of worker-activists are arrested, tortured, and imprisoned in the dungeons of the regime of the Islamic Republic. Their guilt is to attempt the formation of independent worker-organizations, to defend the workers’ rights, to fight for better wages and job security and collective bargaining and health insurance and … Their guilt is to stand to the capitalist regime of the Islamic Republic and not to bend to the pressures and threats of a regime that its authorities’ involvement in multi-milliard dollars embezzlements are known by the people on the streets.
But the regime’s response to the just demands of the workers and their representatives is detention, imprisonment, torture, and charges with conspiracy and action against the “national security”. Most recently, several activists and political prisoners have lost their live under barbaric and medieval torture. Sattar Beheshti, a worker and webloger, was killed under torture less than two weeks after his arrest. Alireza Karami lost his life in the death claws of the Islamic Republic. Beside mistreatment, torture, and physical and mental pressures, the regime of the Islamic Republic has restricted the access to medical treatment for the political prisoner. By “lack of medical attention”, the regime wants to impose on activists “normal” death due to health problems and organ failure.
The regime of the Islamic Republic takes the families of the political prisoners hostage and puts them under pressure and threats with the hope of breaking the resistance of the activists. Taking revenge on the families of the prisoners has been a sick policy of the Islamic Republic. The family of the fallen comrade Afshin Osanlou has been under threat for a long time. Mansour Osanlou, the brother of Afshin Osanlou, is also a worker activist. Mansour was a prominent and founding member of the Vahed Bus Transit Company Syndicate. Due to his shining struggles, he was imprisoned, brutally tortured, and sentenced to 5 years prison term. After finishing his sentence, Mansour had to leave Iran because the Islamic regime has threatened his life. The mother of Afshin Osanlou is also under threat and pressure by the regime on Iran. The worker-activists are faced not only with torture and imprisonment, but also with pain and suffering inflicted on their families by the Islamic government.
Dear Comrades,
The capitalist regime of the Islamic Republic is fearful of the formation of independent worker-organizations. The Islamic regime sees end of its parasitic life nearing when the working class and the people are united, and is trying to suffocate any attempt to build independent and democratic workers' organizations, and detained and charges the worker-activists with conspiracy against “national security”. But the struggle for the formation of trade unions has a long history in Iran, and the arrests and imprisonment of the activists by the regimes of the Shah and the Islamic Republic has been unable to stop this struggle. By the intensification of their struggle against the Islamic Republic, workers will impose their demands on the regime.
The Party of Labour of Iran (Toufan) takes the regime of the Islamic Republic directly responsible for the death of Afshin Osanlou. We strongly condemn the arrest, mistreatment, pressure, threat, torture, imprisonment, and execution of the worker-activists. We demand the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners. We call on fraternal Parties and Organizations, democratic and progressive forces, labour activists, and freedom loving individuals to condemn the capitalist regime of the Islamic Republic for the death of Afshin Osanlou and other crimes. We ask the comrades to express solidarity with the struggles of the Iranian worker-activists and to demand the immediate and unconditional release of all imprisoned worker-activists and all political prisoners.
Shame and Disgust to the Regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran !
Release all worker-activists immediately and unconditionally!
Long live the struggles of the Iranian workers and Toilers !
Long Live Socialism !
The Party of Labour of Iran (Toufan)
July 13, 2013
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Greek unions call general strike July 16
Greece's two main unions GSEE (the General Confederation of Greek Workers) - ADEDY (the Civil Servants' Confederation) have called a 24-hour general strike July 16 to protest government plans to pass new austerity measures.
The Movement for the Reorganisation of the KKE 1918-55 supports the strike and has released posters, flyers, etc. to support the struggle.
Friday, June 21, 2013
Nationalization of public transport now! The people in power!
Hundreds of thousands of Brazilians, mostly young people, are in the streets to demand the reduction of the absurd buses fares and a free pass. Public transport in our country is of poor quality, though it is one of the most expensive in the world. So 37 million Brazilians are forced to walk because they do not have money to pay the fare.
But this does not happen by chance.
Public transport has been privatized. In all major cities a small number of wealthy families are owners of bus companies. The rulers take bribes from these entrepreneurs and, in turn, increase the fares every year, often more than the rate of inflation, leaving the population to the greed of these sharks. This minority, besides realizing super profits from the high fares, receive subsidies from the municipalities and governments. Therefore, the solution is nationalization of public transport.
But the people are also suffering from the dismantling of the Unified Health Care System (SUS), with a mafia of health plans, with teachers receiving low salaries and education being transformed into a commodity.
In the countryside, monopolies steal the land of the indigenous peoples and peasants to export soybeans, while there is a lack of food on the workers’ tables. More than that, our oil is being auctioned to the multinationals in exchange for crumbs.
When the people go into the streets to demand their rights, the governments say there is no money and sends the Shocks Battalions to throw bombs and shoot at the protesters.
However, to meet the interests of FIFA [International Federation of Soccer Association], the federal government has spent billions to build and renovate stadiums. In addition, the Government also uses public money to pay the interest on the debt, enriching speculators, to ensure subsidies to automakers and rescue failed banks, such as the Pan American millionaire Silvio Santos, or the company OGX of the playboy Eike Batista.
For the workers only crumbs are left. Brazil has one of the lowest minimum wages in Latin America, while the capitalist bosses earn fortunes.
The major media of the bourgeoisie, headed by Globo, are also responsible for this situation because they supported the military dictatorship that tortured and killed hundreds of Brazilian revolutionaries and spread corruption throughout Brazil. Globo also supported Collor, the military coup in Honduras, the imperialist wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, it wants Brazil to become the U.S. back yard and defends the repression against the popular movement. Incidentally, alongside FIFA, Rede Globo is the is the one that makes the most from the Confederations Cup and the World Cup. Therefore, it is urgent to democratize the media.
The fact is that the bourgeoisie, the capitalist class, takes possession of all the riches produced by society, while most of the people survive on almost nothing, live in slums or rental housing. When it rains, they lose what little they have, and many lose their lives.
Also because of this failed system, over 200 million workers are unemployed worldwide, of whom 75 million are youths.
The truth is that no one will free the people if they do not fight themselves. To change this situation, the solution is, therefore, to fight and not bow one’s head to the powerful. Without struggle there is no revolution and with no revolution there is no transformation! The PCR is struggling for a popular revolution and socialism!
Enough of the exploitation by the bosses and of abuses against the people!
We demand our rights!
The people are not stupid! Globo must go!
Nationalization of public transport now!
June 2013
Revolutionary Communist Party (PCR)
Monday, June 17, 2013
EMEP: State terror in Turkey
The Justice and Development Party (AKP) government has, once again, tried to suppress the people’s demand for freedom and democracy expressed in Gezi Park demonstrations with the attack towards Gezi Park on the evening of 15 June. Absolute state terror is being directed at the people manifesting their demands through democratic and peaceful demonstrations.
While the extent of the attacks have reached such a point as to carry the intention of killing people, similar to junta periods, it has not been possible to receive any news from those taken under police custody. Police forces have been reinforced with military units and the country is faced with an unnamed martial law, declaration of a state of emergency.
Turkish Prime Minister Erdoğan is hanging on to such rhetoric as; “these events are a result of external forces conspiring against me and my government, those concocting games, interest lobbies, illegal marginal organisations etc. etc.” as though they were life savers. Yet they are all words adding up to a demagogy constructed in order to slander the legitimate protests of the people and find a cover for fascistic actions.
The attack began while (a series of) meetings organised by the Taksim Solidarity Platform in order to determine the tendencies regarding Gezi Park were continuing and as a result of the personal command issued by Prime Minister Erdoğan during his Ankara rally and under the control both of the Governor of Istanbul and Chief of Police. This fact on its own is enough to demonstrate that Tayyip Erdoğan and the AKP government has no intention or desire to solve the issue through peaceful methods and dialogue; that, on the contrary, there is an inclination to collect new political gain from the “chaos” by escalating conflicts and tension.
Nevertheless; the “victim” role acted out very successfully by Tayyip Erdoğan during the last 12 years will not serve this time around. With these last events; our people have fully grasped that what they are faced with is “a wolf in sheep’s clothing”. Like every dictator enthusiast Tayyip Erdoğan is advancing towards the inevitable end at full speed.
No force can stand in front of the will of the people… Hence neither will Tayyip Erdoğan or his government be able to.
Attacks towards the people must cease immediately. The police force must withdraw from the streets and those responsible must be removed from office in order to stand trial. The political responsibility of these events falls on Prime Minister Erdoğan and the AKP government. The Prime Minister and his government must apologise to the people and declare that they accept the demands of the people.
I call on the labour and democracy forces of our country and all our citizens to unite and struggle in order to end this state terror directed at the legitimate, democratic demands of our people.
Selma GÜRKAN
President
Saturday, June 15, 2013
WE HAVE WON! HAYAT TV IS NOT BEING SILENCED!
The reaction of all the different sections of society struggling for democracy has produced this result and a grave mistake was avoided. The voice of the people defending their freedom of information and raised through the slogans of tens of thousands from the streets and both through the messages and actions from their houses, workplaces, Gezi Park, from each and every corner of their living domains has reinforced our voice.
Today Hayat Television is stronger than it was yesterday and will continue its broadcasting with the consciousness that its responsibility has increased and on the basis of all its former broadcasting accumulation.
We extend our endless gratitude to all the masses of people who, claiming their channel, have given their support for it to overcome the danger it faced and who have always found a place for themselves in our screen! We will continue our path, stronger each day due to your support and contributions…
Gökhan Çetin
General Manager of Hayat TV
www.hayattv.net
posta@hayattv.net
Thursday, June 13, 2013
URGENT: Hayat TV to close down
Hayat TV, a progressive Turkish TV channel of the working people, the youth, women and the intellectuals is facing closure.
We believe this is a blow to people’s freedom of information.
The decision for the closure is made by the broadcasting regulator RTUK, Radio & Television High Commission with the pretext that Hayat TV has no licence.
This is not true. Hayat TV has been broadcasting since 21 March 2007 by ofcom licence via TURKSAT satellite. But a recent change in broadcasting rules via TURKSAT requires broadcasters to obtain a RTUK licence to be able to broadcast via satellite.
Our application for a RTUK licence has been submitted and pending for a decision. We have taken all the necessary steps and RTUK agreed that we could carry on broadcasting as it is until a RTUK licence is granted.
However, RTUK is now making an arbitrary decision to close down our channel because of, we believe, our broadcast of recent protests in Istanbul and across Turkey.
RTUK says they investigated “the complaints received for our coverage of the Gezi Park protests” and made a decision for the closure.
We believe this closure is part of the overall repression on the media in Turkey during the more than two-week-long Gezi Park protests. Four other TV channels have been given a fine by RTUK because of their coverage of the recent events.
RTUK sent a letter to TURKSAT to put an end to Hayat TV broadcast at 12:00 p.m. on Friday, 14th June 2013.
We believe this arbitrary and unlawful decision should be reversed.
We call on all democratically minded people to show solidarity with Hayat TV.
Mustafa Kara
Hayat TV Broadcast Coordinator
Selma Gurkan: Gezi resistance needs to grow
What are your thoughts on the people’s movement started by the defence of trees in Gezi Park?
The will and resistance shown by the people to the fluctuating intervention and attacks have not developed overnight. It is a manifestation of the reaction built up by the policies of the government that victimises its own population. It is a reflex against political attacks.
The movement seems to be against the PM. The masses walk to the PM’s office rather than the Parliament. The slogans calling for the PM to resign are the most common...
The reason is the PM’s stance and his statements; aggressive, separatist and provocative. Hence the PM is the visible face of the government’s policies and the target of the protests. In both in his speeches in Tunisia and on his return to Istanbul, as well as his public addresses in Mersin, Adana and Ankara; his mildest definition of the protesters has been looters, plunderers, scoundrels... Since the beginning, he has used similar language against all that has opposed or resisted him. Such as telling the farmers to “take your mum and go”, branding the protests of citizens as “ideological, agitation”, etc. Now he is using definitions against the Gezi Resistance that are untrue. The public has witnessed the dose of violence displayed by the police and their civil companions brandishing sticks. Of course any movement that is just about vandalising cannot be accepted and will damage itself. But what shell the public do faced with gas bombs, police panzers and plastic bullets. They rightfully resist. We are talking about advertising boards and stops that people use as shields being targeted in attacks. These unprovoked attacks are the reason for this resistance to be so popular among the public.
As well as “agitation by outside influences” the PM is also talking internally about the interest lobby, Ergenekon and those favouring a coup. Is there any truth in this?
History is repeating. They are a repeat of government lies I used to hear in my childhood. If we need to draw attention to any agitation it should be the mindset that blocks the eyes, ears and hearts of the public, which oppresses them, gasses, bludgeons and kills them. If an interest lobby exists then the government should look at its own financial relations. It is not the Gezi protesters that exchange money with international financial institutions. To see this movement as an attempted coup is utter carelessness. The PM thinks that his portrayal as the victim of a coup will increase his political reputation. On the contrary it is well known that to bring into line the public, the opposition, the media, the judiciary, the universities, etc. Erdoğan uses tactics that differ not much from a coup. These classic methods to discredit the people’s just resistance do not work anymore.
The PM’s stance was tough before going to Tunisia. The expectation of a softening in his stance on his return was also futile. There was a very strong intervention in Taksim on 11 June.
Yes, he does constantly mention his determination to rebuild the Topçu Barracks but this is not an insistence on the barracks. The PM knows that if he takes a step back now others will follow. This is the emphasis of all of his politics. As a result a reckless attack has been staged on 11 June under the pretext of ensuring security in Taksim.
The level of participation among the youth surprised everyone. Youth in central and women in local actions have been prominent. What has brought them to the fore?
The government policies mostly affect youth and women. The youth, due to its character, do not give in to the traditional; do not appreciate intervention on their lives. They are fed up of the changes in the education system, problems in further education and universities, unemployment and uncertain futures, and women of intervention in their lives, violence and poverty.
What about the Gezi protests spreading to 70 cities around the country?
What we said for the youth and women could be widened to all sections of the society. Everyone is going out on the streets in line with their own local issues. The government’s policies affect all sections of society adversely.
What would the influence of the current period of negotiations and ceasefire be on Gezi resistance or the impact of Gezi on the peace process?
We can definitely talk about a mutual positive affect. The ceasefire of the last five months weakened racist, chauvinist influences and supported the rise of this movement. On the other hand, the Gezi protests have also exposed the public’s yearning and demand for democracy, rights and freedoms. We can confidently say that nothing will be the same again. During the peace process, it was said of the Kurdish struggle that it is a point of no return; the genie is out of the bottle. We could now say the same about the desire and energy shown by the public on the streets in fighting for rights and freedoms. Governments need to realise that you cannot govern without recognising the will of the public.
Along with the call for constraint - aimed mainly at the protesters - by TÜRK-İŞ (Confederation of Turkish Trade Unions), TZOB (Turkish Chambers of Agriculture), TOBB (The Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges of Turkey), Hak-İş and Memur-Sen (Pro-government trade union confederations), weren’t the other unions late in their reaction?
A call for constraint among the public after their sufferings from attacks, injuries, deaths and violence will not find a response. The calls for restraint must be addressed at the government, the Department for Internal Affairs, governors and the police. It should also be noted that the support from opposing unions within TMMOB (The Union of Chambers of Turkish Engineers and Architects), TTB (Turkish Medical Association) and DİSK (Confederation of Revolutionary Trade Unions of Turkey) and some opposition unions in Türk-İş to the initial strike decision by KESK and the strike and street protests, taking place in the early stages of the protests is important and meaningful, regardless of their weakness. But this unity has not been developed further. Local platforms, committees and unions must be set up immediately for unity of power.
What kind of lessons should be learnt from the struggle by the unionists and advanced workers and labourers?
Unions should quickly advance the organisation for unity among workers and public workers to develop class unity. Organisation should not be limited to this; all sections of the public involved in the struggle, mukhtars, neighbourhood associations, community centres, religious centres, etc. that defended their rights and freedoms in the streets and neighbourhoods should develop and strengthen their own organisation. To develop this struggle and turn it into a real people’s opposition, spread the struggle for democracy in the country, to create the widest unity of equality, democracy and peace movements; these are the immediate tasks facing labour, peace and democracy organisations as well as our party.
The reaction to Erdoğan’s statement of “I’m hardly keeping the 50% at home” has led him to point at the elections in seven months time and took decisions for big rallies in major cities. What does this mean?
This has never been seen in history. The government has the opportunity to communicate with the population at any time they want. Everything he says is in all forms of media. He had thrown the same threat at students protesting against exam irregularities. He is now organising rallies that will put people against each other. The AKP government-calling people out for these rallies are a call to arms. Furthermore, he is abusing the power of his office, blackmailing public sector workers to welcome him in the streets, and abusing public utilities such as using public transport vehicles. Where is the equality, justice democracy in this? Kenan Evren had staged rallies like this after 12 September to make the public feel the force and effect of the coup. You are the government in office, how are these different from the rallies of a coup?
Even if the PM got 70% of the votes, does this justify oppression of the other 30%?
We have to look at this 50% issue from different perspectives. Firstly, what reality does it represent? Once the system, election threshold, non-voting has been taken into account his share drops to 49.5%. Hence it is not clear to what degree he represents the public’s desires. Let us assume he got 50%, even 90% of the votes. Does this mean the government can do what it wants? Let’s look at AKP’s election manifesto. Did he go to the public saying “We’ll fix minimum wage at the hunger threshold? Increase the price of petrol, electricity and water. We’ll ban alcohol and cigarettes. We’ll evict you from your houses through ‘urban transformation’. We’ll open mines that will poison your lands and water and ruin the environment with new dams. We’ll reduce your children’s opportunity for employment through our work policies. You’ll pay extra for education and health services. Vote for these policies?” What has been promised and exercised is different. At what stage of these implementations is the public consulted? He is talking about a 50% as if he kept his promises. Second issue is the lie that the minority is ruling the majority. Gezi protestors aren’t complaining about this or that aspect of the majority. Besides, he is talking about majority and minority according to what criteria? What is important is that the rights of the majority and the minority are secured. He is trying to split society into them and us, but the Gezi protesters are giving his politics the best response with variety and colour.
Could the Gezi demands be seen as democratic demands? How can a link between those and other be established?
They are the most democratic demands. What is not democratic is the PM’s stance, policies, and government. A call to “Give up on building the Topçu Barracks, demolishing the AKM, and building a third bridge” means give up on all policies such as building dams, power plants, urban transformation and privatisation of forests and protect your history, nature and environment.
The investigation, removal and prosecution of the governors, police chiefs and secretaries of state responsible for the attacks is a call to the government to not wave a stick in the faces of its citizens, investigate those that do and not use chemicals on your own people.
Furthermore, photos of the police officer that killed Ethem Sarısülük in Ankara had been shared in social media for days and finally shown by national media. The irresponsible actions and hostility of this officer, who jumped in among the workers and just shot the young worker, cannot be accepted. Internal Affairs and police should immediately hand this individual over to the law.
To demand the release of those in custody means; you cannot investigate, prosecute and imprison people just because they are against the dominant policies and critical of them, you should review these policies. The demand to open squares to the people means remove any barriers against the public’s rights to gather, demonstrate, march and those against media and freedom of speech, make open spaces available to the masses.
Formulized for equality, solidarity and freedom, the Gezi protests summarise the country’s need for more democracy. It represents the demands for justice and freedom by all sections of the society; equality between Turkish and Kurdish, solidarity among all minorities whether Laz, Caucasian, Arab and Armenians and equality between all beliefs whether Alevi, Sunni, Christian, Assyrian.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)