The Europe
[1]
of today, despite its long-lost central position in the capitalist
world, still is home to countries where both monopolistic capitalism and
the material pre-conditions for socialism
[2]
are most advanced. Faced with this reality, it is no surprise that
European peoples and workers’ movements suffered the most from the many
faceted scars and the deepest effects of the temporary comprehensive
defeat of the international working class. The specific asymmetry of
note here is that in this territory – where material pre-conditions of
socialism are most advanced and hence the most advanced sections of the
only class that is able to establish a social revolution (working class)
exist – workers’ movement is in a historically
[3]
least powerful, disorganised, most divided position and its trust in
socialism is most shaken. This relative inverse proportional
relationship between objective and specific conditions, caused by the
historical defeat, is still not overcome.
[4]
Yes, still despite the 2007-2009 economic crisis that shook Europe.
It is clear that if the deep economic crisis – that started a period of
deepening general depression in monopolistic capitalism – had not
coincided with this period of the historical defeat, the development of
the class struggle would have developed differently.
This crisis has also had an impact on the aforementioned asymmetry.
Not only did it expose the parasitic character and the decay of
monopolistic capitalism
[5]
but it also led to new concerns among all classes and their political
representatives that suffered socio-economic deterioration in their
conditions. The crisis exposed the limits of the European workers’
movement against the capitalistic offensive, the serious frailty and the
weaknesses of those parties tasked with (or at least claiming to)
organising and directing that movement. This article will focus on two
examples highlighting typical ideological-political problems of European
workers’ movement.
[6]
One of these is the increasingly evident modern social reformism within
Syriza and the other is the emerging left doctrinarism and sectarianism
within the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Considering the general
situation above, it is no coincidence that these two examples have come
to heads in a country where the crisis caused major social trauma.
MODERN SOCIAL REFORMISM AND THE WORKERS’ MOVEMENT
‘
Die Wirtschaftswoche’[7],
the perfect media mouthpiece of German capital, faced its audience with
a striking cover following the formation of the Syriza government: on
the fluctuant red flag were three faces; ‘
leader of the Podemos Movement’
in Spain, Pablo Iglesias was on the left, the new Prime Minister of
Greece Alexis Tsipras was in the middle and the new Finance Minister
Yanis Varoufakis was on the right. The title was the chorus of The
Internationale and the sub-title read: “The new left populists of Europe
are poor, sexy and dangerous for our welfare!”
Any Marxist-Leninist that saw the cover would have laughed at first,
as linking Syriza and Podemos to communism and revolutionary workers’
movement is laughable! The mouthpiece of German capital knew fully that
these adolescent ‘
socialists’ had nothing to do with
revolutionary socialism. It seems that capital’ magazine couldn’t resist
– presented with the opportunity – ridiculing communism through these “
new left populists”. At the same time it felt the need to warn “anything they may spur on one way or another could threaten our welfare!”
We will return to the cause of this warning but first we must make something clear: how does modern social reformism
[8]
differ from classical reformism that preceded it? The commonality is
clear: deny workers’ revolution and rule; reform capitalism socially
through public opinion and parliamentarian means rather than working
class struggles, making it more ‘
human’; replace ‘
savage capitalism’ with ‘
social and ecological capitalism’; achieve incremental social improvements through ‘
reforms’ based on preconditions of capital relations, etc. In short, from an
ideological perspective there is no difference between old and modern reformism.
The most important difference between modern and classical reformism
is its relationship with the working class – or the lack of it. Modern
social reformism of today is social reformism within the conditions of
the historic defeat of the working class, the effects of which are still
felt. The previous one surfaced and found its political meaning in
keeping a dynamic and revolutionary workers’ movement within the bounds
of capitalism, to curb the workers’ movement and to turn it from
revolutionary action. When a serious revolutionary workers’ movement
develops in any country, without a doubt today’s social reformism will
also expand its role in this direction.
However, there is not a serious revolutionary movement that will
embrace the population of its class today and modern social reformism
has risen and strengthened despite this absence! In other words, to say
social reformism is social reformism – that is, to look at the issue on a
purely ideological basis – will prevent us from clearly grasping the
reality of the problem.
If social reformism found the opportunity to develop within
conditions where workers – besides being revolutionary – cannot act in
unity as a class or repel bourgeois offensives, then it should be noted
the real point of today’s social reformism is not so much as its
reformism but its sociality. In other words, the ideological frailties
of today’s mass movements observed in many European countries and driven
by socio-liberal reformist ideology should not prevent us from
recognising their social reality.
As known, since the collapse of Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc,
international capital and especially European capital have shown a
widespread and relentless offensive against the working masses. In a
fairly short amount of time, workers found out that capitalism “that
beat communism” did not really bring welfare and security as claimed.
Indeed they lost many social, economic and democratic gains of the
previous period. The big economic crisis deepened this offensive;
workers were made to pay the bill. Whatever the explanation by bourgeois
and social liberal ideologues, the situation is that wide masses of
workers, labourers and youth are protesting against this offensive,
increasingly reacting against social and economic conditions and express
their discontent against the status quo in different ways.
Toiling masses increasingly oppose the attacks unleashed by capital
and their governments, but what do they want? They put forward social,
economic and political demands such as the end of the offensive,
termination of austerity policies and the withdrawal of social rights,
new areas of work created and funded properly especially for the youth,
higher taxation of financial capital, better pay, end to privatisation,
limiting or abolition of subcontracting, abolition of anti-worker
changes in-laws, equal pay, investment in health and education, the
limitations on rights to strike, demonstrate and march to be withdrawn,
etc.
[9]
Just as elections show the level of maturity of workers, their
demands show the political level of workers. Of course not in an
abstract sense; within its relationship in a specific period, conditions
and situation. From this perspective, it is clear that demands are
generally defensive and focus on regaining lost rights. This character
of demands also indicate to an overlap between workers’ movement and
social reformism.
Nevertheless, the social backbone of modern social reformist movement
are workers’ aristocracy, small and (a limited number of) middle
bourgeoisie and intellectuals.
[10] Capitalist crisis and the increased capitalist offensive (‘
neoliberalism’!) have caused disillusionment with capitalism itself and they are longing for a ‘new’ ‘social capitalism’ (‘
social market economy’) that is actually old (‘
social state’!).
Hence, while the bourgeoisie claims that socialism is a historical
deviation, modern social reformists claim that capitalism deviated from
its essence!
From this perspective, today’s social reformism represents a form of romanticism (from the “
return to principles”
of the French Bourgeois Revolution to the re-establishment of “social
state”!). Classic social reformism on the other hand was not romantic,
despite being limited by the horizon of transforming capitalism through
social reforms, it was forward-looking.
On the other hand, due to the historic defeat, workers trust in
socialism is shaken and ideologically they are mainly influenced by
social-liberal currents. It is such that the two classes/groups, in the
same state of mind due to their disillusionment and distrust (one of
socialism and the other of capitalism), have met in ‘social capitalism’.
This overlap directly shapes the working class under conditions where
struggle for socialism is seen as a dream; pushes the working class
towards modern social reformism, the expression of which could be quite
radical in terms of the crisis and the level of social shock it caused;
enables the working class to embrace a struggle, along the line preached
by social reformism, to secure real and tangible improvements in social
and economic conditions.
Needless to say, unless the social and political reality of European
workers’ movements summarised above is grasped, no revolutionary task
can be executed correctly and effectively. The more this is realised
today, the clearer the complexity and difficulty communists’ face in
their duties to represent workers’ movement and the foresight, patience
and flexibility expected of them.
Going back to the warning by
Wirtschaftswoche as to the
‘dangerous’ strengthening of modern social reformism, which in reality
aims not to do away with capitalism but reestablish the previous ‘
social state’ or ‘
social welfare society’;
this warning is an expression of the experiences of monopolistic
bourgeoisie. Their ideologues are well aware of many historical
movements that started out with a certain social or political goal and
ended with completely different aims or results. For this reason, they
do not want to play with fire!
DAMAGE CAUSED BY MODERN REVISIONISM
As Marxist-Leninists, we are aware that worthy social reforms are
achieved by a revolutionary struggle of the working class and the
masses. Besides, historically reforms have always been a byproduct of
revolutionary struggles (meaning measures and reforms in an attempt to
weaken revolutionary struggle and to stunt it). “Without Social
Democrats there would be no social reforms” (Bismarck). As such, without
the October Revolution and the Soviet Union there would have been no
‘social state’. The history of European workers is full of similar
examples that support this thesis, hence this side of the problem is
clear.
Another truth that is also clear is that the working class of today
are separated from their history and historical accumulation. We are
faced with a contradictory and specific situation: there is a serious
mismatch between the historical accumulation of the working class as a
political class and the horizons of its current practical struggle. To
see the real roots of this contradictory situation you need to look at
modern revisionism that seized power in the 20th Congress of the
Communist Party of Soviet Union and the historical defeat that it
delivered.
So that we don’t lose track we’ll settle with expressing this: modern
revisionism has turned the working class revolutionary theory into a
shallow and formal one; it has blunted “
its revolutionary dialectics”
[11]
seen by Lenin as the “determining factor in Marxism” and hence removed
Marxism-Leninism as the guide to working class action. During the
dominance of modern revisionism, especially in Western Europe, workers’
movements never reached the level of a serious revolutionary movement.
There were numerous workers’ struggles in Europe between the end of the
60s and the early 80s. But none of these struggles were directed –
either by modern revisionism in the Soviet Union (and hence its
satellite revisionist parties of Western Europe) or by Euro-communism –
with a view to develop and organise the working class or with a
perspective and practice that enable the working class to come to power.
The more the revolutionary character of the working class was weakened,
the more workers became dominated by the liberal bourgeoisie through
social liberalism. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern
Block was the icing on the cake, or rather a situation that was taking
shape became politically clearer and the period of erosion of the
revolutionary character of working class was achieved…
So where does the KKE stand in this picture? Despite taking a
positive stance in respect of main ideological and political issues such
as criticism of 20th Congress and Kruschev’ revisionism
[12],
it still has not overcome the dismantling of revolutionary core of
Marxism-Leninism and primarily the damage to realising the role and
duties of communist parties towards the working class. Hence, the
political, social and economic shocks in Greece brought on by the
worldwide economic crisis and the social erosion this caused has very
quickly exposed the KKE’s weaknesses. The frailties and mistakes of the
KKE on the aforementioned issues played a major role in failure to
fulfil its complex and difficult role as a communist party within the
conditions of class struggle in Greece.
[13] The friendly criticism of these frailties and mistakes are essential for the benefit of Greek and European workers’ movements.
We say ‘friendly’, because it needs to be known that criticisms cited here are not related to the ‘
right opportunistic’ criticism the KKE receives.
[14]
Indeed, the KKE has for a while been involved in discussions with
international focus groups that it is also a member of. According to the
KKE, there exists “
a crisis within the communist movement”: “
strengthening opportunism is evident in the ideological-political and organisational crisis of international communist movement”.
[15] The issues that “
lead to splits ”
within the movement are wide-spread from the character and stages of
revolution to concepts of parliamentarism, from approaches to capitalist
crisis to proletarian internationalism. For example, this movement has
failed to publish a joint declaration following their annual general
conference for the last two years.
Currently, the KKE shared its opinion on the discussions within the movement with a statement titled “
On some of the problems of the international communist movement”.
This and many other statements include many truths regarding openly
right-wing thesis (Transforming the EU to support public; the delusions
spread about China and Russia in terms of BRICS countries; “
socialist” definition of Latin American “
progressive governments”; affirmation of “
21. Century socialism” and the “
market socialism”
in China and Vietnam, etc.). (We should also mention that some of the
KKE evaluations overlap with ideas argued by The Conference of
International Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations – CIPOML- which
was borne from the struggle against modern revisionism, redeploying
itself with the Quito Declaration at a time when anti-revolution was
rampant). Despite this positive point, as will be seen below; the
position of the party in terms of responsibilities towards the working
class, its duties and necessary tactics and alliances still retains
doctrinarian and sectarian tendencies.
LINE OF “ALLIANCE AND STRUGGLE” OF THE KKE
In the aforementioned statement, the KKE draws attention to the line of “
alliances and struggles” developed in its own country. It is mentioned that the “
point of focus” of this line is “
re-building the workers’ movement and strengthening class unity through class orientation”. Furthermore, the party’s attempts to build an “
alliance
of the public; of the working classes and destitute farmers, small
business owners, women and the youth of families that belong to
different public strata” is highlighted. “Under
current
conditions this alliance is expressed in the unified struggles and
coordinated actions of PAME among the working class, PASY among the
farmers, PASEVE among self-employed and urban business owners, MAS among
university youth and OGE among women”.
[16]
It might be thought that a real
people’s alliance is established in Greece. Nevertheless such a situation is not present. It is claimed that the “
social people’s alliance has an anti-capitalist anti-monopolistic direction”. So? The reality is this: PAME, PASY, PASEVE, MAS and OGE are “
combatant units” established by and following the line of the KKE! And as such they are naturally “
anti-capitalist and anti-monopolistic” units. In the KKE’s words they are executing “vanguardist mass activities”! In short, there is not a “
social people’s alliance”
in reality, on the contrary there is an organisational unity between
union, youth, women and farmer organisations of the KKE’s own and/or
those that follow its line.
On the other hand, these “
combative unions”, in unity with the KKE, along their own “
anti-capitalist anti-monopolistic” line, are preparing for revolution; “
people’s alliance”, “
will
grow with every struggle for each problem facing the public, adjust to
new conditions and prepare itself, so that it can play a leading role in
conditions of revolution”. “
Revolutionary conditions have an objective character and every party should be prepared for this”. “
KKE,
class conscious movement and the public alliance play a leading role in
the struggle in Greece; mobilise masses of hundreds of thousands
against capital, its parties and government and the imperialist EU”.
The KKE’s concept of struggle must have been criticised in its member
group, as the following is also included in the statement: “
Statements
that show revolutionary movement in a bad light and call it ‘sectarian’
damage communist movement. These statements are trying to render
worthless the actions of vanguardist mass activities – continuing the
struggle through concrete targets for each problem faced by the public –
against monopolies and capitalism by KKE, PAME and other organisations”.
We cannot determine from these “statements” which basis and/or arguments the “
sectarianism” criticisms were based on. But we must point out that the KKE’s
understanding of class struggle has sectarian properties. “
Continuing the struggle through concrete targets for each problem faced by the public” in the “
vanguardist mass activities”
does not remove this sectarianism (known sectarian tendencies also
claim the struggle for concrete problems faced by the public). Besides,
the real issue is not for which problems ‘
vanguardist mass activities’ are continued; the issue is the approach itself, the creation of a
separate vanguardist group (camp). It is known that the KKE has created a
separate vanguardist group within
the social movement; that in pretty much in all activities it marches,
mobilises and organises separately with this group…
We shall continue. How can the KKE, a party that still has an
important place in the Greek workers’ movement, defend the creation of a
vanguardist camp in the workers’ movement in the name of
Marxism-Leninism? This approach is based on two arguments:
- “The character of the revolution is socialist” in Greece.
Those parties, movements, unions, mass organisations that do not follow
the KKE or its line are reformist and/or bourgeois and belong to the
system (at least those that have a certain power in the workers’
movement). Because of the socialist character of the revolution the
alliances set up must be “anti-capitalist and anti-monopolistic”. Hence,
alliances should not be with others, on the contrary “social people’s alliance” will be built through winning workers to “vanguardist mass activities” of the “combative units” under the control of KKE.
- The transfer from capitalism to socialism has no “transitional stage”: “The
problem is significant. The logic of stages, objectively and
independent of intentions, recommends solutions that benefit the public
within capitalist framework. This theory is realised by ‘transitional
stage’ contributing to the maturity of subjective factors and playing
the role of a bridge to socialism. … This approach has never been
validated anywhere and contradicts the lessons of the Great Socialist
October Revolution of 1917. Even worse is the fact that stages logic
leads to solutions that sustain the system, such as ‘left progressive or
nationalist governments’ that (objectively) sustain the benefits of
monopolies that continue to own means of production and hold on to
political power.” According to the KKE, “this option” encourages “illusions”, “does not contribute to preparing the workers’ movement to tough struggles” and on the contrary “obliges the workers’ movement to act late, exposes it to bourgeois ideology and politics and drags it to parliamentarian dreams.
It is evident that the KKE closed its eyes to the reality of the “
subjective factor”!
This can be seen in their statement of “we will not put the class under
foreign flags!” seen not only in the lines above but in many of their
statements.
[17]
Lenin’s recommendation in facing such tendencies is “
to put the most sound and clear evaluation of the actual forces of the class, using concrete truths!”
[18] We need to do this because
in the conditions we are in; where
the effects of the historical defeat of working class are still
seriously felt, where the working class trust in socialism is shaken,
and furthermore when bourgeois and social liberal outlook is dominant
among workers; the KKE is against this or that
“option” with the excuses of “
exposure to bourgeois ideology and politics” and “
dragging the workers’ movement in to parliamentarian dreams”. Who does the KKE have in mind when talking about these “
illusions”? It cannot be the working masses as they already are in the clutches of these “
illusions”.
If the KKE chose the realities of workers’ movement as the focus of its
attention, it would realise that the problem is backwards; how can we
redirect workers entrapped by these illusions to a path where they can
develop their own independent movement?
We will return to this question asking the most fundamental dimension
of the complex and difficult duties. We should make two points
regarding “
transitional stages” argument.
1) Does “
transitional stages” mean what Kruschev’
revisionism forced on communist parties in advanced capitalist
countries; “a peaceful transition to socialism” through
“anti-monopolistic democracy”? It is clear that a program line that does
away with socialist
revolution from the beginning, that
absolutises a theoretically possible and historically unique and
temporary situation to replace revolution and that organises or shapes
itself not for a socialist revolution cannot be defended in the name of
Marxism-Leninism. Hence an “
anti-monopolistic democracy” is
wrong. In this approach the main issue is not a unique possibility; on
the contrary it is a deviation, of the working class, from the duty to
organise and awaken the class as one that will deliver the socialist
revolution. So, if the KKE is against a
transitional stage that is not a “
transitional stage”, then they are surely correct.
2) Nevertheless, this does not change their sectarian position. There
is not even a need to ignore todays reality and ‘there won’t be in the
future’ to found this refusal. There is no reason to refuse all ‘
transitional stages’[19] saying “neither bourgeois rule nor worker-public rule has any transitional stage”.
Lenin, leaning also on the experience of the October Revolution says; “
History
in general and the history of revolutions always is richer, more
diverse, more alive and more ‘able’ in content than the most advanced
classes’ leaders and parties assume.”[20] Transitional stages and conciliations are created “by
historical developments”. And as Engels stated “
German
communists are just that because they can clearly see, beyond all the
transitional stages and conciliations created by themselves and by
historical development, a social system that does not allow the private
ownership of land and means of production”.
[21]
Nevertheless, leaving aside the fact that history does not take
sharp statements
into account; what is more important now is that this approach creates a
big handicap in terms today’s duties of class struggle. It is a
handicap because ‘one solution’ approach narrows the horizons of
communists, reduces their work to single dimensions and renders them
unable to see the rich variety of class struggles and turn them in to
foundations of the workers’ movement. While problems caused by modern
revisionisms rendering Marxism-Leninism a theory are not overcome, the
KKE – in sectarian tendencies against the rising social-reformism and
rightwing opportunism – is not only a party without a minimal programme
but, due to its strategy and tactics losing their specific differences
from each other, is in a position of one where its strategy does not
need its tactics and its tactics do not differ from its strategy.
To solidify it Elisseu Vagena, member of the KKE Management Committee
and responsible for international relations, says in an interview with
Evrensel newspaper just before the 2012 elections: “the
KKE today
does not struggle for a ‘transitional stage’ and has no ‘no minimal
programme’. This surely does not mean that it has a strategy but no
tactics. The KKE’s tactics include unifying workers in line with the
needs of the struggle, the defence of social and democratic rights and
satisfaction of the people’s modern basic demands. We have a complete
line that identifies our stance and targets in facing the struggle for
every need of the people. Besides, we think that all gains of the
working class under rule of capitalism without establishing
worker-people’s rule are temporary.”
[22]
There is no need to retell the concrete situation the workers are in but what is the logic behind saying “
all gains of the working class under capitalist rule are temporary”
at a time where workers’ movement is at a historically weak position?
Does this statement have any meaning at a time where all gains are lost?
It is also not true that these gains are
absolutely temporary.
The gains of today’s working class could become the foundations of a
revolutionary working class of the future. Isn’t this what we should
struggle for? Lenin talks about the half-hearted and two-faced ‘reforms’
based on the current system and transformation of these into ‘
bases’ of the workers’ movement that is advancing to complete freedom of the proletariat.
[23]
Different gains and successes, turning them into bases – what will
worker-people’s rule rise on if not on these gains and the like – if it
is to rise from the remnants of capitalism rather than the dream of
socialism or its specialist human product?
[24]
What we should focus on today is not their temporariness but ways to
achieve them, use this to help working class gain in confidence, turn
them into bases for complete freedom of the workers’ movement. When this
is achieved, the horizons of the movement could become free of partial
successes and worker-people’s rule could become practicable as the only
way to solve concrete contradictions of today as opposed to theoretical
perspective.
Lets look at what has been claimed as “the
KKE’s tactics”: “
the need to unify workers”, “
defence of rights” and “
meeting basic needs”… Is there anything here that could be a
concrete and identified ‘tactic’?
It is clear that these include nothing specific in relation to the
concrete situation before the elections of 2012; at a time where the
country was active both socially and politically and where the party
needed to develop an extremely flexible and even seemingly contradictory
stance.
“The
programme determines main relationships of the working class
with other classes and the tactic determines specific or temporary
relationships.” (Lenin)
[25]
It is true that sectarian tendencies in the KKE approach to class
struggle prevent the working class – that it claims to represent – from
developing “
individual and temporary” political relations that
will improve its capacity to fight and influence other classes. It is
also true that possibilities in the country, borne out of heavy crisis
conditions but not taken advantage of due to such frailties and
weaknesses, are occupied by social-reformist and fascist powers.
[26]
APPROACH TO WORKERS’ MOVEMENT
In the last couple of years and especially the last election, due
also to Syriza’s rise and proposals of alliance, pressure on the KKE has
built up. Not able to differentiate ideology and politics
[27],
the KKE has refused the proposal of alliance and having won the
elections, Syriza formed the government. The KKE has stated that it will
not be a party in power and that it will show no tolerance to Syriza…
It was of course going to be wrong for the KKE to be coalition
partner in a government led by the social reformist Syriza. Engels’
example, drawing attention to ‘
French social democrats’ taking
up seats in the progressive government formed after the February of
1848, is well-known. French socialist democrats were wrong, as “
in
creating a minority within the government, they decimated the
revolutionary action of the working class they claimed to represent and
willingly took part in the deception and betrayal of the working class
by republican majority.”
[28]
In addition to this, it
was possible for the KKE to
establish a platform that incorporated the urgent and pressing demands
of workers and the public, join in a wide alliance with Syriza and other
progressive forces through this platform, and make adhering to these
demands as a precondition of its alliance with Syriza. This was
essential under the current level of awareness and expectations of the
workers’ movements. This tactical move would of course not expect Syriza
to follow a revolutionary line; on the contrary, this would have helped
workers base their demands from Syriza on solid and real foundations in
that they don’t pass the accomplishment of their demands on to Syriza
and develop and protect their own initiative to make these come true.
Under conditions of a wide progressive alliance, the support of the
working masses would not have been left to Syriza. The KKE could have
proven that it is the most reliable defender of the demands of the
masses and the strongest force to meet urgent needs of the people and
resultantly take the opportunity to use this position in breaking
prejudices among the masses of workers and public in general against
itself and socialism.
In the conditions we are in, where the main contradiction of
capitalism is manifested in many different ways and class struggles –
due also to the proletariat not being able to create its own independent
movement – are taking place in more mediated conditions, it is
necessary for the party of the working class to “
walk a more zig-zagged and twisty road”
[29] compared to yesterday. “
The
issue is to carry out this tactic in a way that raises the awareness,
revolutionary spirit and the ability to struggle and win of the
proletariat rather than in a way that reduces it”.
[30]
Unfortunately, the KKE could not focus on workers, their level of
awareness, expectations, perception of events and the change in their
mood as much as it focused on the social reformist character of Syriza.
Is it not these points that we should always, and especially in the
current situation, focus on? Turning to Syriza among workers points not
only to their “
illusions” but also to a big section of the
public’s reluctance to put up with austerity policies; to their demands
that capital takes on the burden of the crisis as well as the workers;
and to their search for a political alternative to mainstream political
parties that would meet their burning needs and demands.
Is it not clear that “
worker-people’ rule” will not be
possible without a serious shift in the outlook of a majority of workers
and that this shift will happen not only with propaganda but through
“the political experience” of the masses? Isn’t the fact that most
things that are clear and visible to communists are not so for the
masses more true in these times where the effects of the historical
defeat are still felt? “
In terms of pure communism, meaning abstract communism that is not matured for political and practical mass movement” the differences of opinion between bourgeois politicians “
could be taken lightly or dismissed”. But they cannot be overlooked “
in terms of the huge importance these differences have with respect to the practical movement of the masses”.
[31]
Isn’t it the duty of communists today “
to watch carefully over
the real condition of whole class conscience and preparation, not only
the advanced forces but the whole of the working masses” and not only the most aware leaders? Is it possible to know how to ‘act as a party of the masses’ without going down to the ‘
level of the masses’,
without tailing and grovelling to the masses and without giving up on
telling them the cruel truth? It of course is possible and obligatory
because of the need to protect and develop this dialectical relationship
which seems as a ‘contradiction’! As Lenin put it “
communists only
task is to know how to make those who aren’t aware believe, and know how
to work amongst them, not to come up with otherwise childish ‘left’
slogans and separate from them.”
[32]
In short, the KKE approach to workers’ movement shows two weaknesses:
a) ignoring the pedagogical factor, and b) party fetishism.
- a) Without a doubt, the political duties of a
communist party could not be reduced to pedagogy. If this is done, party
politics will lose its wide reach and become superficial, furthermore
it will lose its predictive and guiding character. This truth does not
and should not render unnecessary “an element of pedagogy” to
be present in the political work of the party – especially targeting
workers and the people. To ignore this would mean the denial of the need
to educate the whole of the working class, to explain revolutionary
theory to the most backwards elements of the movement and the need for
their conviction that party politics are correct; that their awareness
needs to be raised through “carefully and patiently” building their trust and acknowledging their experiences. To forget this factor will be turning scientific socialism into “a dry dogma” and purely “talking the book”.[33]
General Secretary of the KKE, Dimitris Koutsoubas, in a speech
celebrating the 96th anniversary of the foundation of his party, just
before the election that carried Syriza to power says: “P
eople are
faced with a need to free themselves from all anti-people politics and
parties and establish its own rule. The current situation (national and international) does allow us to lose any time.”
[34]
The results of the general election has shown that people did not feel
the expressed need! A necessity that is not needed can only be a
theoretical necessity. So, the public is not yet faced with “
a need to establish its own rule.” Hence, the General Secretary is here stating only
his (the party’s) will. Was Lenin not right in saying “
the most dangerous error of revolutionaries is mixing up their own will, ideology and political opinions with the objective truth”?
[35]
Yes, but does the Greeks not seeing what Koutsoubas says as a
necessity
remove the historical-theoretical truth of what has been said? No, it
doesn’t, but it does not go beyond the statement of an abstract truth
that has no response in the reality of workers lives today. We ask now
whether we are wrong in the analysis of the KKE as a party yet to
overcome the narrow ground dictated through the turning of
Marxism-Leninism into a formal theory by modern revisionism?
- b) Marx and Engels, while explaining the
contradiction between communists and the proletariat in the Communist
Manifesto, use the following statements which are highly significant
today: Communists “have no interest that is divorced from those of the proletariat” and “they cannot put forward private (sectarian) principles to shape the proletarian movement”. Communists differ from “other proletarian parties” in the following characteristics; “they
always represent the interests of the whole class during developing
periods of struggle between the proletariat and bourgeoisie” and against the wider sections of proletariat “they have the advantage of theoretical understanding of the movement of the proletariat, its direction and general results”. The aim of the communists is “turning the proletariat into a class, demolition of bourgeois rule, the grasping of political rule by the proletariat” (it is clear that this order is not arbitrary!).
Considering the clear statements above, regarding the relationship
between the proletariat and the communists and the aims of the latter,
it is no surprise that Marx and Engels “
specially formulated” the following “
cry of war” into the initial text of the First International: “
the liberation of the working class should be the product of the working class.”
[36]
What is the need for this reminding and highlighting? Because modern
revisionism have also caused serious damage in terms of the concept of
party. It is as if modern revisionism created a party fetishism, for
obvious reasons. The essence of party fetishism is putting itself in
place of the working class. Nevertheless, the party is not an
aim that contains its own salvation, “
as the highest form of class unity of workers” (Lenin)
[37] it is their most advanced
means
of struggle. The party can neither take nor fill the place of the
working class and hence should not and cannot act with such a motive!
Lenin points to “
the duty to organising the class struggle of the proletariat instead of a call to political struggle for the advanced workers” just for this reason.
[38]
The more a party disregards the level of awareness of workers, their
presumptions, illusions and the need to convince them; the more a party
overlooks the specific political experiences of the masses, the
readiness of working class and its movement to do in terms of
ideology-politics-organisation, the less it learns from the practice of
the masses, the more party fetishism will spread in that party.
If a party is focusing on itself and its cadres instead of organising
the workers’ movement and raising its awareness and organisation, if it
mixes up the unity of its cadres with a “
peoples’ social alliance”,
if it is not targeting the unity of the working class in practice, if
it fails to make developing the struggle for unity of workers interests
in daily struggle and workers’ united struggle an indispensable element
of its tactical stance, if it replaces it with a separate camp of ‘
vanguardist mass activists’
created within the workers’ movement; then, no matter what that party
theoretically defends, it cannot act as the party of the whole of the
working class, which results in it failing its duties to the workers’
movement.
If party fetishism is not overcome, after a point this will lead to a
loss of meaning in the eyes of the workers or be dragged to doctrines.
Finding yourself in the position that Marx called “unattainable”: “
We are not coming out with principles that are doctrines, the truth, kneel before it!
We bring to the world the principles that the world itself developed in
its bosom. We don’t say leave your struggles there, they are worthless,
we will call out the real testimonial to struggle. We show it exactly
why it is fighting.”
[39]
In drawing attention to the October Revolution’s link to WWI Lenin comments on the revolution having “
some specific properties and differences borne from the war itself” and that those who cannot grasp Marx’s ideas could not see this. As they “
have
seen that capitalism and bourgeois democracy followed a certain line of
progress in Western Europe and couldn’t think that it could be taken as
a mutatis mutandis model, with some corrections (corrections that have
no significance in terms of the general development of world history).” October Revolution was going to show new properties “
because the world has never witnessed such a war in such conditions.” As a second point that needs to be understood Lenin says “
despite development of history in the world following universal laws”, “
they
have understood that differences during some developmental stages and
the form of these progresses or the order they follow are not
‘forbidden” and on the contrary they should be presupposed.”
[40]
The attitude and statements of Lenin are extremely significant for
today’s communists. This wide and deep perspective needs to be adopted.
We can express the specific nature of our situation as such: matured
contradictions not yet finding their matured responses. This surely
points to a big contradiction. We should not run away from the
contradictions of life; on the contrary, we should embrace these
contradictions; we should investigate them as clues to better
understanding social issues and class struggles and we should draw from
them practical results that help advance the position of the working
class. The inverse ratio between our action and inaction dictated by the
conditions is not insurmountable.
We need to explain to the working masses the content of their action
and enable them to reach a real awareness of their action and
themselves. Paying attention to specific nature of conditions we are in
is a precondition for carrying duties in a way that is true and not
formal. As long as this attention is not reduced to just a theoretical
one it can be seen that, especially on issues that seem to be
contradictory (i.e. revolution-reform, alliances-independent politics,
theory-practice, women’s issue – class issue, etc.) a more developed
theoretical understanding and tactical flexibility is essential.
Otherwise, it will become impossible to avoid or escape lazy right or
leftwing trends.
[41]
Hence, given the specific historical conditions, our first aim is to enable the ‘
proletariat’ to “
become a class” as mentioned in the Communist Manifesto; to facilitate the working class “
acting as a class.”
Just as Engels stated in his warnings against the Germans that ran away
to America and showed a sectarian attitude to American workers’
movement: “
our theory is not a dogma, but the explanation of a
period of evolution and this process includes consecutive stages.
Expecting the Americans to start out with a full knowledge of the theory
from more experienced countries would be expecting the impossible. What
the Germans need to do is, as we did in 1845 and 1848, to act according
– if they understand it – to their own theories; to walk with all
movements of the general workers’ movement, fully accept its starting
point and move it to theory by degrees, showing them how each mistake
and defeat was a necessity of the theoretical mistakes in the original
programme. As stated in the Communist Manifesto, they had to ‘represent
the future of the movement from within the movement’.”
[42]
Who could have known that international working class was going to
suffer a temporary but comprehensive historical defeat and these
warnings would become relevant to both the workers themselves and the
communists?
April 2015
*
This article was published in Özgürlük Dünyası, the political journal
of EMEP, in May 2015. Since then there have been important developments
in Greece. Firstly, SYRIZA signed an agreement with the Troika despite
the “No” vote in the referendum. But SYRIZA also won the elections and
became the first party again. Secondly, the KKE was criticized in this
article for “not moving to organise the alliance of big sections of
people on the basis of their urgent demands.” But after the general
elections on September 20, General Secretary of the KKE, Dimitris
Kucubas, said: “The KKE will work for the struggle to reorganise, to
strengthen the workers’ and peoples’ movement and to organise the broad
alliance of peoples.” After this statement, we want to hope for the KKE
to change its position for a revolutionary struggle platform and move
towards building a real united front of workers and labourers. We will
be happy if this hope becomes reality.
[1]
Undoubtedly, contemporary capitalism cannot be understood by
overlooking the US. That said, within the context of the subject matter
of this article, the US needs to be analysed in its own right, because
it has unique qualities that require a detailed assessment. Addressing
this requirement in this article will, however, broaden the purview of
this article.
[2] Throughout this article, socialism as a social formation will denote the elementary stage of communism.
[3] Ever since the working class has intervened in the political struggle as
a class.
[4] See: “Emek Partisi – Enternasyonal Komünizmin Tarihsel Anlamı”; Enternasyonal Yolunda 20 Yıl, pg. 124, Evrensel Basım Yayın.
[5]
As demonstrable – firstly and foremost – with countries like the US,
Germany, the crisis has generated new differing perspectives and camps
within the monopoly bourgeoisie. However, such developments are beyond
the scope of this article.
[6]
Europe, for reasons already mentioned, constitutes the advance example.
The emergent issues and trends in this continent are inclusive of and
can be discerned in the working class movements in other countries and
continents.
[7] See: 16 March 2015, issue no: 12.
[8]
Contemporary social reformism is constitutive of a broad range of
currents. It embodies Attac, anti-globalisation currents, yellow trade
unions, the representatives of Evangelical and Catholic churches
opposing
“evil capitalism”, Party of the European Left, Neo-Keynesians, and intellectuals and economists that advocate
“radical democracy” and
“democratic socialism”. Within this wide-ranging movement, “socialism” projectors (e.g.
“socialism in the 21st century”) are abound.
[9]
Undoubtedly, there are in other—unspecified— countries abundant and
different demands, which are not mentioned above. The aim here is to
paint an approximate and a centring picture.
[10]
The discontent and trepidations of these layers and groups do not only
find their political reflections in social reformism, but also in
racist, social-nationalist and openly fascists movements in Southern and
Northern Europe. In areas where the monopolies have a strong hegemony
this burgeoning discontent and trepidations can be melted in the same
pot.
[11]
“Bizim Devrimimiz”; Ütopik ve Bilimsel Sosyalizm, pg. 251, Bilim ve
Sosyalizm Yayınları. Unless specified otherwise, all of the citations
are translated into English from the designated sources (Translators
note).
[12]
The KKE, a few years back, had put forward its analysis of capitalist
restoration in the USSR. In this analysis, the following evaluations are
important and positive: the 20
th Congress was a turning
point, and the critique of Khrushchev’ revisionism in the realm of the
political and the economic (thus far, these evaluations were the
dividing points of and in different political traditions). That said,
the KKE’s analysis do contain pivotal drawbacks and lacunae, an in-depth
analysis of which can only be the subject matter of a different
article.
[13]
In 2012-2015, there were 50 24-hour and 48-hour general strikes. See:
Seyit Aldoğan, “Yunanistan Seçimleri ve SYRIZA hükümetini doğru ve
yanlışlarıyla değerlendirmek”; Özgürlük Dünyası, No. 262, March 2015.
[14] For example, designations regarding SYRIZA being a part of the government:
“a peaceful and gradual transition to socialism” thesis etc.
[15] http://inter.kke.gr/de/articles/Ueber-einige-Fragen-der-Einheit-der-internationalen-kommunistischen-Bewegung/
[16] ibid. Unless specified otherwise, the below citations are from the same source.
[17] http://inter.kke.gr/tr/articles/KKE-Genel-Sekreteri-DimitrisKucubas-Snf-yabanc-bayrak-altna-sokmayacagz/
[18] “Yeni Zamanlar, Yeni Kılıkta Eski Hatalar”; Lenin – Seçme Eserler, Vol. 9, pg. 271, İnter Yayınları.
[19] http://www.evrensel.net/haber/30719/halk-iktidari-disindaki-cozumler-sermayeye-yarar
[20] Lenin, “Sol” Komünizm – Bir Çocukluk Hastalığı, pg. 102, Sol Yayınları.
[21] Lenin citing Engels’s ‘The Program of the
Blanquist Fugitives from the Paris Commune’ (1874) in: “Sol” Komünizm; pg. 67. Sol Yayınları.
[22] http://www.evrensel.net/haber/30719/halk-iktidari-disindaki-cozumler-sermayeye-yarar
[23] Lenin Werke Bd. 15, pg. 444.
[24] Lenin, “Sol” Komünizm, pg. 45, Sol Yayınları.
[25] Lenin, “İşçi Partisinin Tarım Programının Yeniden Gözden Geçirilmesi”; Tarım Sorunları, pg. 364, Sol. Yayınları.
[26]
Without doubt, from this stipulation one cannot derive the following
conclusion: modern social reformist and fascist movements gaining ground
in Greece is solely and essentially attributable to the drawbacks of
the KKE. Such a conclusion will not only over exaggerate the actual
clout of the KKE but also negates the role of all other factors germane
to the crisis.
[27]
A striking example of this is the KKE’s political approach to the EU.
The KKE, on the one hand, rightly, conceives the EU as a union of the
imperialists and, in contrast to rightist opportunists, it claims that
the EU cannot be transformed into an entity functioning in the interest
of the masses. And, on the other hand, it links the question of leaving
the EU and the Eurozone to the condition of a workers-people’s
rulership! This entails that the KKE will not demand that Greece exists
the EU without the occurrence of a revolution. Concurrently, though, the
KKE does not ally itself with forces that do not demand Greece exiting
from the EU. Yet, if the demand to exit the EU is conditioned on such a
rulership, then, this particular demand should not be the prerequisite
for partaking in alliances formed around and for the demands of the
masses. Result? Not to be in alliance with forces that do not uphold the
rulership of the workers! Naturally, this implies that there is to be
no united struggle with forces that say
“No to the EU and the Eurozone”.
[28] Marx-Engels, Seçme Eserler, Vol. 3, pg. 555, Sol Yayınları.
[29] Lenin, “Sol” Komünizm, pg. 75, Sol Yayınları.
[30] ibid, pg. 102.
[31] ibid.
[32] ibid, pg. 50.
[33] See: Lenin, İşçi Sınıfı Partisi Üzerine, pg. 233, Sol Yayınları.
[34] Rizospastis (Greek Daily), 11-01-2015.
[35] Lenin, “Sol” Komünizm, pg. 56, Sol Yayınları.
[36] ‘Circular Letter to Bebel, Liebknecht, Bracke, and Others’ in: Marx-Engels, Seçme Yapıtlar Vol. 3, pg. 113. Sol Yayınları.
[37] Lenin, “Sol” Komünizm, pg. 45, Sol Yayınları.
[38] Lenin: “Rus Sosyal Demokratlarının Görevleri“, Seçme Eserler, Vol. 1, pg. 491, Inter Yayınları.
[39] “A Letter to Ruge”, Marx in: Felsefe Metinleri, pg. 24, Sol Yayınları.
[40]
“Devrimimiz Üzerine”; Lenin, Ütopik ve Bilimsel Sosyalizm, pg. 252,
Bilim ve Sosyalizm Yayınları. Mutatis mutandis is a Medieval Latin
phrase meaning “[with the things] to be changed having been changed”
(Translators note).
[41] See: “Enternasyonal Komünizmin Tarihsel Anlamı” – Emek Partisi; Enternasyonal Yolunda 20 Yıl, pg. 125, Evrensel Basım Yayın.
[42] Engels, Letter to F.
Kelley–
Wischnewetzky in New York, 28 December 1886 in: Marx-Engels Seçme Yapıtlar, Vol. 3, pg. 586.
