Communist Party of Greece [Archive]

Die Neue Zeit

6th May 2010, 05:27

The Economist: "Greek politics still includes a Communist Party that is rigorously Stalinist (it damns Khrushchev as a liberal backslider)..." (All the while ignoring that Stalin sold out on Greece in the late 40s :rolleyes: )

Others have called it a Third Periodist organization just because it has its own union marches separate from the main ones:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_interviews_spokesman_for_Greek_far-left_party_Xekinima?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+WikinewsLatestNews+%28Wikinew s+Latest+News%29

The current leadership of the KKE not only refuses to collaborate with the rest of the left but treats it as a class enemy, on the pretext that Synaspismos (the largest faction in the SYRIZA coalition) voted for the "Maastricht Treaty". This became more obvious during the December 2008 uprising where it denounced the youth as "agent provocateurs that seak to destabilize the country manipulating the masses to violence" and that SyRizA was "harboring vandals and criminal elements", earning shameful congratulations from the government and the far-right. Also the KKE through its union front P.A.ME. refuses to collaborate with other unions in industrial action except general strikes, and then always with separate demonstrations and rallies. This behaviour however has not gone unnoticed by the rank-and-file members, and there is sizable discontent with this hardline approach.

http://www.marxist.com/crisis-greek-capitalism-impact-on-labour-movement.htm

It was basically a KKE strike, a party strike, with a clear division of the working class. They first announced the strike in the KKE journal, Rizopastis! In the process they even managed to alienate the Synaspismos trade union members, accusing them of being simply the “same as PASKE”.

I would honestly like to learn more about the KKE and its history myself.

griffjam

6th May 2010, 05:39

The KKE? I would call it reactionary to have your youth wing block popular assemblies from forming. I would call it reactionary to, along with the Greek Orthodox Church (http://garizo.blogspot.com/2008/12/blog-post_14.html), denounce the 2008 uprising as being organised from foreign agents targeting the integrity of the country. (http://www.ana-mpa.gr/anaweb/user/showplain?maindoc=7126121&maindocimg=7124323&service=102)

The Leadership of the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) started using an unbelievably hostile rhetoric against the 2008 uprising and the massive demonstrations of the first days. KKE organized its own demonstrations in different meeting points and hours, in which no “outsiders” were allowed to participate and at the day of the General Strike, basically followed the governmental “advice” and decided not to lead its blocks outside the Parliament, but to make a circle of the area of Omonoia Square (during which, its blocks stopped for 5 minutes outside SYN Headquarters and shouted slogans). The General Secretary of KKE, Aleka Papariga accused SYN and SYRIZA for a favourable treatment of the rioters for electoral reasons, using the exact same phrase with the President of the extreme right-wing party (Giorgos Karatzaferis), just some moments after the meeting with the P.M (“SYN pets the ears of anarchists”). The Political Bureau of KKE, in its analysis on the events, spoke about a plan of destabilization of the Greek society, orchestrated by secret services from abroad.

The Leadership of KKE has decided to express a homogeneous rhetoric with the right-wing government and the extreme right-wing forces, in order to reinforce its position inside the Greek Left. The Leadership of KKE has contributed to the attempts for the delegitimization of one of the most important uprisings in the contemporary political history of the country and is therefore subject to an extensive criticism inside the movement and the Greek Left.

Black Sheep

6th May 2010, 07:43

^^^
Good points all the above, but don't fucking call it a 'reactionay', ffs.
It's a genuine stalinist party.

FSL

6th May 2010, 07:49

KKE is a communist party that can be described as leninist-antirevisionist.

People that oppose it while describing themselves as leftists are anarchists, minor Trotskyist and Maoist parties (who have no disagrements between them oddly) and the modern european left.

Nothing weird if I may say, these people would also speak of how the Soviet Union should be brought down and are probably joining Merkel and co in her little free-Berlin celebrations.

FSL

6th May 2010, 08:27

This is the page with the party's proposals.

http://www.kke.gr/anakoinoseis_grafeioy_typoy/h_protash_toy_kke_gia_thn_dieksodo_apo_thn_krish

In case you can't have it translated through google or something, the important parts are

Socialization of the monopolies in the sectors of banking, energy, telecommunications, of factories, means of freight and passenger transportation, of natural resourses and mineral wealth. Of the concentrated means of commerce (supermakets, malls etc) and storage.
Of construction companies in the sphere of popular housing. Of R&D and of the media. Monopoly on foreign trade.

Strictly public and available to all, free access to education, medical care and insurance policy.

Promotion of collective forms of property where capital is not as concentrated, like among small agricultural producers or self-employed shop owners.

A centrally planned economy with workers' control in every productive unit.

Looking over the state's debt with all options open.

Exit from EU and NATO.

Black Sheep

6th May 2010, 10:19

People that oppose it while describing themselves as leftists are anarchists, minor Trotskyist and Maoist parties (who have no disagrements between them oddly
They have plenty of disagreements with each other.Constant and fierce.

Devrim

6th May 2010, 10:23

^^^
Good points all the above, but don't fucking call it a 'reactionay', ffs.
It's a genuine stalinist party.

I think the point is that Stalinism is reactionary.

Devrim

bie

6th May 2010, 10:35

I think the point is that Stalinism is reactionary.
Could you define please what do you understand under the term of "stalinism" and "reactionary" and how do you link those 2 things together? And then find in KKE programme a single sentence that may confirm this. Otherwise it is just pure slogans.

It is quite normal that bourgeoisie attacks communists (nothing new). There is also nothing new in confused youth supporting this ridiculous claims. KKE is the militant, marxist-leninist organisation with a wide social basis and working class support. The decades of fascist dictatorship made working class immune to the all sort of tricks thats its enemies play.

This is the page with the party's proposals.
Pure reactionary and nationalistic! :lol:
By the way, the slogan "Peoples of Europe - Rise Up" - also nationalistic and reactionary? How can you figure it out? :lol: - this is question to LEO

CChocobo

6th May 2010, 10:39

http://www.marxist.com/greek-december-short-balance-sheet.htm

FSL

6th May 2010, 10:39

They have plenty of disagreements with each other.Constant and fierce.

Well, the "constant and fierce" disagreements don't stop them from being allied even though they don't share goals.
Maybe hating the CP is enough of a unifying factor.

bie

6th May 2010, 10:45

For the fans of "december riots" and supporters of thesis that angry youth can takover the country :lol:, here is the short video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RSXXkxJauw&feature=player_embedded.

You may see that young "anarchists" were actually police provocateurs controlled by the state. By the way - you confuse revolution with a riot. It is not the same :lol: Revolution requires years of preparatory work and class consciousness.

Maybe hating the CP is enough of a unifying factor.
Lets also remind that ANTICOMMUNISM is a bourgeoisie ideology by the way... Regardless if it claims to be "lefitst" or "rightist".

Black Sheep

6th May 2010, 10:47

Well, the "constant and fierce" disagreements don't stop them from being allied even though they don't share goals.
Maybe hating the CP is enough of a unifying factor.
Spoken like a true KKE stalinist.

They aren't allied.Every cooperation they make is both fragile and most of the times temporary,for short term, narrow goals.

Stop having delusions of being under constant attack,the world doesn't revolve around you.

punisa

6th May 2010, 13:07

Proletarian Ultra

6th May 2010, 13:49

How many members does KKE actually have?

A lot. They still have major cred for leading resistance against the Germans and then the western Allies during and after WWII.

From all I've read so far, KKE looks pretty good.

Meh. During the current wave of mass demonstrations (going back 3 or 4 years now) they've either been tailing the student/anarchist movement or actively hostile to it. In 2007 when Karamanlis was trying to privatize higher education, the student/anarchist left was out in major fucking unified force almost immediately. KKE and its youth group PAME was slow to respond and insisted on having its own completely separate demonstrations from the broader movement. That's always its policy. In general it might be a good principle to avoid cooperation with liberal/reformist forces, but that wasn't the case here. The demonstrations were incredibly class-conscious and were already calling for the overthrow of the Greek state.

Coming out against the 2008 anti-police demos was just fucking inexcusable.

KKE has also stooped from time to time to shameless nationalist opportunism. During the war on Serbia they ran two far-right journalists for Euro parliament, one of whom is still a KKE member in good standing and current MP, the other of whom has gone into genocidal anti-Macedonian agitation as a full-time job.

Max1917

6th May 2010, 13:57

Full support to the KKE! :cool: It is marxist-leninist party so i don't understand how can people call them revisionists?!

Proletarian Ultra

6th May 2010, 14:13

Full support to the KKE! :cool: It is marxist-leninist party so i don't understand how can people call them revisionists?!

The issue isn't so much revisionism so much as tactical and strategic conservatism. Fortunately, that is easier to fix. I have problems with KKE but I think they are worthy of support and realistically they are still the party best positioned to lead resistance.

Max1917

6th May 2010, 14:18

The issue isn't so much revisionism so much as tactical and strategic conservatism. Fortunately, that is easier to fix. I have problems with KKE but I think they are worthy of support and realistically they are still the party best positioned to lead resistance.

Can you confirm that KKE youth had a clash with anarchists before 5-6 years ago (maybe more),when anti-authoritarians occupied their offices?

Ismail

6th May 2010, 14:35

The "K"KE is a revisionist party which follows Ludo Martens and his idiotic "Pan-Socialist" views. The Hoxhaists in Greece rightfully criticized the opposition of the "K"KE to the protests in 2009 (in the article "2009 salutes the Greek student youth’s grand spontaneous uprising that shows the way of struggle").

See: http://anasintaxi-en.blogspot.com/2009/12/2009-salutes-greek-student-youths-grand.html

Those calling the "K"KE "Stalinist" are the same ones who would call the anti-communist revisionist Brezhnev a "Stalinist," so there's little meaning. They just happen to be pro-Ludo Martens rather than pro-liberalism, which makes them "unique" but not really anti-revisionist or whatever.

So what does this make Anasintaxi (a group which explicitly calls itself Stalinist)? Über-"Stalinists"?

Devrim

6th May 2010, 14:35

Could you define please what do you understand under the term of "stalinism" and "reactionary" and how do you link those 2 things together? And then find in KKE programme a single sentence that may confirm this. Otherwise it is just pure slogans.

I'd start with the prase in the programme, which defines the KKE as a 'profoundly patriotic party'. Do you think that communists are 'profoundly patriotic'?

Devrim

Ismail

6th May 2010, 14:39

I'd start with the prase in the programme, which defines the KKE as a 'profoundly patriotic party'.The Hoxhaists in Greece note in their article how a lot of Fascist groups support the "K"KE because of its "patriotic" stance.

I fail to see how any CP praised by Fascists can be considered a genuinely Communist grouping, but such is the logic of "Pan-Socialism" à la Martens.

Max1917

6th May 2010, 14:41

I'd start with the prase in the programme, which defines the KKE as a 'profoundly patriotic party'. Do you think that communists are 'profoundly patriotic'?

Devrim

Communists support national liberation struggle.In that sense you can consider 'profoundly patriotic'.

Ismail

6th May 2010, 14:42

Communists support national liberation struggle.In that sense you can consider 'profoundly patriotic'.There's a difference between anti-imperialist national liberation and fascist-like "THEY ARE DESTROYING THE NATIONAL INTEGRITY OF OUR GLORIOUS COUNTRY!"

FSL

6th May 2010, 15:58

Spoken like a true KKE stalinist.

They aren't allied.Every cooperation they make is both fragile and most of the times temporary,for short term, narrow goals.

Stop having delusions of being under constant attack,the world doesn't revolve around you.

So the Maoist KOE and the trotskyist parties Xekinima and DEA aren't allied in Syriza?

The Maoist EKKE and the trotskyist SEK aren't allied in Antarsya?

You can now retract from your statements as they were clearly wrong.

FSL

6th May 2010, 16:01

From all I've read so far, KKE looks pretty good.
So only if you're a member of KKE you may join their demonstrations?
Never heard about such practice before, but I guess there is a good reason for doing so.

How many members does KKE actually have?

Of course you can join a protest while not being a member of the party.

You can't join if you're wielding molotov cocktails and "weaponry" like that. There are people forming chains to prevent that.

Now for people who think class struggle is done with molotovs, that's a huge tragedy.

Saorsa

6th May 2010, 16:46

FSL, could you explain to us the KKE line on patriotism and what kind of nation Greece is?

Can you confirm that KKE youth had a clash with anarchists before 5-6 years ago (maybe more),when anti-authoritarians occupied their offices?

What would people expect the anarchists to do if a bunch of KKE cadres occupied their offices?!?

this is an invasion

6th May 2010, 19:05

The KKE is a nationalist party. They condemned the uprising against the first Greek dictator, have set up hit squads to kill anarchists in the past, and condemned the uprising in December 2008. Fuck them. Now that the uprising in Greece is becoming generalized and is no longer confined to reformism, they are trying to jump on board in order to take control. I have quite a bit of hope for the Greeks due to the nature of the uprising since December, but for real, I hope the working class has learned from the past.

FSL

6th May 2010, 19:44

FSL, could you explain to us the KKE line on patriotism and what kind of nation Greece is?

The marxist one?

One of many articles about immigrant laborers in Manolada fields
http://www1.rizospastis.gr/wwwengine/story.do?id=5157903&textCriteriaClause=%2B%CE%9C%CE%91%CE%9D%CE%A9%CE% 9B%CE%91%CE%94%CE%91

A demonstration by Egyptian workers in the fishing industry, their strike for basic rights lasted over a month. The banner reads "Greek and foreign workers united"
http://www1.rizospastis.gr/wwwengine/story.do?id=5445110&textCriteriaClause=%2B%CE%9C%CE%97%CE%A7%CE%91%CE% 9D%CE%99%CE%A9%CE%9D%CE%91

Article written 10 days ago on the living conditions of immigrant workers in Filiatra, demonstrations of solidarity followed
http://www1.rizospastis.gr/wwwengine/story.do?id=5614563&textCriteriaClause=%2B%CE%A6%CE%99%CE%9B%CE%99%CE% 91%CE%A4%CE%A1%CE%91

Foreign workers in a PAME demonstration calling for the legalization of all immigrants.
http://www1.rizospastis.gr/wwwengine/story.do?id=4788549&textCriteriaClause=%2B%CE%9C%CE%95%CE%A4%CE%91%CE% 9D%CE%91%CE%A3%CE%A4%CE%95%CE%A3+%2B%CE%A0%CE%91%C E%9C%CE%95+%2B%CE%A0%CE%9F%CE%A1%CE%95%CE%99%CE%91

Also, the "International Meeting of Communist & Workers' Parties" took off in 1998 on a KKE initiative. And yes, not all the parties there -probably not even most of them- have a revolutionary perspective but this is the unfortunate result of an awful period for the communist movement.
Even so it did help to bring closer some of the "decent" CPs remaining in Europe and build something that resembles like a common front despite many being quite weak.

And it's certainly more than anything most people here have done to bring forth a world-encompassing communist takeover, right?

In any case many of the slurs weren't really worthy of an answer.

bie

6th May 2010, 19:54

Looks like some of you are confusing patriotism with nationalism.. There is nothing wrong in patriotism by the way. Patriotism is the ideology of respect to the native people and homeland. Nationalism is the imperialist ideology of domination of one nation over others. The distinction is clear. What is more important is the class content. Some of you also state a non-marxist theory about "rulling class". Just to remind you, social classes are economical categories, distinguished by the relation to the means of production.

So the accusations about "nationalistic" character, when KKE say about patriotism is ridiculous. The same as saying that KKE is a part of a "ruling class". The ruling class is a bourgeoisie. How can one treat seriously the statement that PAME is pro-bourgeoisie? This is a nonsense. Looks like your dogmas - simply do not fit the reality.

And about "december 2008" - here you have a piece of the interest - hope all will see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RSXXkxJauw. This is about your "insurgents" from "December 2008". Eh, there must be somenthing strange about that - that "anarchists" are cops. :thumbup1:

Wait a while - why were they destroying that windows? Maybe they want to escalate the "insurgency"? Think about this.

Escalation of nonsense violence is the strategy of provocateurs that :

1) aims in presenting anticapitalists as dangerous extremists and isolating them from the masses
2) justify special measures and anti-terrorist law applied against real class enemies.

I hope I got myself clear. In this light the stance of KKE is not only justified, but also very wise. Unless you think that the capitalism can be defeated by throwing stones at shop windows by students. If so - It does not require any comments.

Max1917

6th May 2010, 20:56

What would people expect the anarchists to do if a bunch of KKE cadres occupied their offices?!?

:confused: I didn't said that KKE occupied offices of anarchist,but anarchist occupied offices of KKE youth.After that there was a fight...

Wanted Man

6th May 2010, 21:13

He said "if". That is, if that were the case, you would expect them to defend themselves.

So what does this make Anasintaxi (a group which explicitly calls itself Stalinist)? Über-"Stalinists"?

I guess that makes Anasintaxi (whoever they are) a bunch of caricatures of communists.

The Hoxhaists in Greece note in their article how a lot of Fascist groups support the "K"KE because of its "patriotic" stance.

I fail to see how any CP praised by Fascists can be considered a genuinely Communist grouping, but such is the logic of "Pan-Socialism" à la Martens.

Hmm, I don't think fascists would have had much of a problem with Venezuelan hoxhaists. But they were rogues, of course...

The reality is that you can't control what people say about you. I mean, anti-communists of all stripes probably also have a lot of praise for hoxhaists, for they give them some good ammunition against communism.

Oh by the way, the first response of the Greek fascists to the fire at the bank was to blame the KKE. Funny that. :rolleyes:

Anyway, yeah, awful man, that Ludo Martens and all the other CPs. How dare they do stuff. If only they'd go back to calling themselves "stalinists", forming "parties" with nothing but theoretical blogs, and fighting for justice for hoxhaists on internet forums.

Delenda Carthago

6th May 2010, 21:18

Whoever likes to get 5 specific slogans to shout(aproved by the party nomeclature),whoever likes to gets controlled who he/she dates with,whoever likes to gets controlled if he is a good student,whoever likes to hate everyone else in the left,whoever likes to think cops as "working class children",whoever thinks dialectics as something solid,whoever likes to think that stalinism in that sence is something proper for 2010, can support KKE.

The rest of you are anticommunist opportunists,PASOK voters,agent provocateurs etc :laugh:

jake williams

6th May 2010, 21:25

The thing which I think is fascinating in this thread is that while there are lots of problems folks have with the KKE, some of which I'm sure are fabricated or meaningless and some of which seem to be very legitimate and serious - objectively, they're probably the main political force (from what I can tell, my understanding of the situation is not profound) fighting against the IMF/PASOK/EU assault. To be totally frank I don't know if I've seen a communist party be that central in the struggles of an industrialized country in my lifetime. That should be a big deal.

Ismail

6th May 2010, 21:26

Anyway, yeah, awful man, that Ludo Martens and all the other CPs. How dare they do stuff. If only they'd go back to calling themselves "stalinists", forming "parties" with nothing but theoretical blogs, and fighting for justice for hoxhaists on internet forums.They've been around for over 40 years and are a part of the ICMLPO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_of_Marxist%E2%80%93Lenini st_Parties_and_Organizations_%28Unity_%26_Struggle %29), which is what 99%* of significant Hoxhaist parties in the world are coalesced under, including the significant Ecuadorian Hoxhaists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movimiento_Popular_Democr%C3%A1tico). Just because you know nothing about them (or rather, they're Hoxhaists, so you just make barbs) means little.

The fact is that the "K"KE is pursuing a revisionist and anti-revolutionary course, and condemning those who go against the government. Anasintaxi noted their anti-communist positions.

* Not including the Malian Party of Labor.

bie

6th May 2010, 21:41

The fact is that the "K"KE is pursuing a revisionist and anti-revolutionary course, and condemning those who go against the government. Anasintaxi noted their anti-communist positions.
Could you explain me where do you see revisionism in the stance of KKE? "Revisionism" is the term that refers to abandoning marxism-leninism towards social-democratic ideology. Could you please point out why do you call KKE "revisionist"? I expect an essential explanation with reference to their documents, especially regarding current situation (eg. last congress).

From my knowledge of KKE theory and practice there is nothing "revisionist" about them. This is clearly a marxist-leninist political party. More - it should be an inspiration for all communists.

whoever likes to think that stalinism in that sence is something proper for 2010
You use the term "stalinism" as a sort of a threat. What do you understand under this term? What does it mean - "stalinism"? Why is KKE "stalinist"?

Delenda Carthago

6th May 2010, 21:46

scarletghoul

6th May 2010, 21:47

The Hoxhaists in Greeceand what do they do, apart from criticise the groups who are actually active revolutionaries. I've never even heard of 'the hoxhaists in greece' and tbh I'm not sure many greeks have either.

jake williams

6th May 2010, 21:51

Of course.KKE is the bigest cp of the western world.does it mean that it is democratic?hell no!
While I'm not ready to grant blanketly that it's "undemocratic", surely there are problems with it, as there are with any party. My concern is that its critics seem to find its central role in Greek class struggle less relevant than minutiae, which I find absurd.

Delenda Carthago

6th May 2010, 21:58

I think I was more than clear.KKE is together with anarchism(if we suppose yesterday's deaths dont blow in the air the work we have put in for years)the center of resistance.

If you want to deny the fact that KKE is the most antidemocratic monolithic party in Greece,that's your problem.Or it isnt,since you dont live here to know what "KKE is undemocratic" means.I was a member of KNE and when I left,I sudenly became a junky,an agent provocateur,an undercover cop...

So talk all you want.Quebec is far far away.If you have a party where if you shout a slogan at a protest that the party dont aprove,or if you go out with an anarchist or a leftist girl,you ll get deleted by the party,join it and tell me how do you like it.

KKE dont want free people.It wants sheeps.Its no wonder that every KNE member that will answer to me will say the same specific things...

FSL

6th May 2010, 22:04

Nolan

6th May 2010, 22:11

Delenda Carthago

6th May 2010, 22:14

I'm so glad people like you get the boot immediately.
Jesus...

Ps No, I'm an atheist

You would like to be that way,but believe me home's.Its not.

I left by my self.Kai gia na mi se ektheso stous xenoys parapano,mantepse poso kairo me pernan tilefono apo tin OBA...;)

Delenda Carthago

6th May 2010, 22:17

Oh that's so anti-authoritarian, man. Let's have a smoke sometime.

that's the best you got?hahahaha

You live in fuckin USA,its ridiculus to judge what I talk about!Thank god USA communists dont have the images of soviet union to want to mimic in the 21st century...

now go you and your party(all 5 of you) see a bolshevik movie or smth...

Delenda Carthago

6th May 2010, 22:27

dont get me wrong.I dont hate on KKE.I go to guard strikes with PAME.I still have friends,and I am pro KKE in a discusion with a right winger.

I just wished it was more democratic.Then, I might even voted for it.

Obrero Rebelde

6th May 2010, 22:49

"Profoundly patriotic"? As in given to "patria worship"?

Ismail

6th May 2010, 23:02

Could you explain me where do you see revisionism in the stance of KKE? "Revisionism" is the term that refers to abandoning marxism-leninism towards social-democratic ideology. Could you please point out why do you call KKE "revisionist"? I expect an essential explanation with reference to their documents, especially regarding current situation (eg. last congress).The condemnation of student protests, for one...

From my knowledge of KKE theory and practice there is nothing "revisionist" about them. This is clearly a marxist-leninist political party. More - it should be an inspiration for all communists.They're a "Pan-Socialist" party which regards Cuba and the DPRK as "socialist," and I think (though am not sure) China too. That alone is quite revisionist.

bie

6th May 2010, 23:30

The condemnation of student protests, for one...

They didn't condemn student protests - please have a look here:

http://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-information/
http://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/speech-aleka/
http://inter.kke.gr/News/2008news/2008-12-protest-against-perist/

There were against nonsense escalation of violence and against provocations (as per attached video).

They're a "Pan-Socialist" party which regards Cuba and the DPRK as "socialist," and I think (though am not sure) China too. That alone is quite revisionist.
I prefer Cuba and DPRK over USA/UE. As the term 'socialist' is quite broad (mainly used to express the social ownership of means of production, planned economy and dictatorship of proletaryat) - there is nothing wrong in using it to describe societies of various levels of development. Sure, if you stick to the ideological puritanism, you will always find things that do not fit into an ideal model of socialism. But is it really necessary? There is nothing wrong in denouncing eg. right wing-opportunism of ruling CPs (eg. in late Soviet Union). But to some extent it is also not a bad thing to keep the proportions and to recognize also achievements of working class and other strata in those societies.

Have a look what they wrote about China:

4. The approach arguing for the existence of “transitional societies”, with distinct characteristics both in relation to capitalism, as well as in relation to socialism, is an incorrect one. Starting from this viewpoint the development of capitalist relations in China and Vietnam is mistakenly interpreted as representing transitional “multi-sectoral societies”
and:

Furthermore, the developments do not validate the overall stance of the “Maoist” current vis-a-vis the construction of socialism in the USSR, the characterization of the USSR as social-imperialist, the rapprochement of China with the USA, as well as the inconsistencies in matters of socialist construction in China (e.g. the recognition of the national bourgeoisie as an ally in socialist construction, etc.).

18th Congress, Resolution on Socialism, http://inter.kke.gr/News/2009news/18congres-resolution-2nd

They may call it "socialist" but at the same time they also recognize what went wrong. There is nothing revisionist here....

What Would Durruti Do?

6th May 2010, 23:35

I love when supposed "revolutionaries" talk shit about violence.

Non-violence protects the state. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the reds like the state...

bie

6th May 2010, 23:42

What Would Durruti Do?

6th May 2010, 23:43

No. Mindless violence gives to the state excuse to use special means (eg. anti terrorist laws). It also alienates the movement from the masses. I do not say that the violence it bad in general - the bourgeoisie resistance has to be broken and revolution defended. But the point is that it can be also used by our enemies against us - in order to make us criminals. We are not a bunch of extremists. We are conscious workers, students etc. - ordinary people.

Yes we are, I agree. And any ordinary person would respond to this situation with anger and violence.

We are NOT extremists. If you think fighting police is "extremist" you may be on the wrong forums.

Nolan

6th May 2010, 23:51

I love when supposed "revolutionaries" talk shit about violence.

Non-violence protects the state. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the reds like the state...

Wait a minute...shouldn't you be the one accusing us of being bloodthirsty maniacs?

Oh yeah gotta smash that state huh.

bie

6th May 2010, 23:51

Ordinary person should organize himself in a strong and militant organization which will take the power via the range of political means (fighting police is one of them). Otherwise it will simply fail. They are strong. They have tanks, TVs etc. In order to fight them we have to be strong as well. I wonder what can you win via street violence on its own. Did you see the video I have attached earlier? Police provocateurs were participating in that riots! It simply means that the state wants us to to use violence. Why? Because they will have the excuse to use the violence on us.

What Would Durruti Do?

7th May 2010, 00:00

Wait a minute...shouldn't you be the one accusing us of being bloodthirsty maniacs?

Oh yeah gotta smash that state huh.

You guys aren't bloodthirsty until you take control of the government, obviously.

Much easier to suppress your enemies when you have complete control I suppose.

Ordinary person should organize himself in a strong and militant organization which will take the power via the range of political means (fighting police is one of them). Otherwise it will simply fail. They are strong. They have tanks, TVs etc. In order to fight them we have to be strong as well. I wonder what can you win via street violence on its own. Did you see the video I have attached earlier? Police provocateurs were participating in that riots! It simply means that the state wants us to to use violence. Why? Because they will have the excuse to use the violence on us.

Police provocateurs take part in ALL riots. I fail to see how that is relevant. People with brains will be able to realize that there are always spies and traitors among revolutionary ranks.

bie

7th May 2010, 00:10

Police provocateurs take part in ALL riots. I fail to see how that is relevant. People with brains will be able to realize that there are always spies and traitors among revolutionary ranks.
No. By denouncing them we know now what the state and police wanted - the escalation of random and mindless violence. It is v. relevant.

What Would Durruti Do?

7th May 2010, 00:13

No. By denouncing them we know now what the state and police wanted - the escalation of random and mindless violence. It is v. relevant.

Obviously the police are going to want to sabotage their biggest enemy. This will happen no matter what. Why change our tactics because of something that should be expected?

Znamya

7th May 2010, 03:05

I'd start with the prase in the programme, which defines the KKE as a 'profoundly patriotic party'. Do you think that communists are 'profoundly patriotic'?Patriotism does not mean nationalism or chauvinism and internationalism does not amount to national nihilism. It's a shame that some are more interested in factional squabbling rather than supporting the workers of Greece and the proletarian party. Proletarian internationalism, the friendship between workers of different nationalities, is not incompatible with socialist patriotism.

It was Lenin who said:

"Patriotism is one of the most deeply ingrained sentiments, inculcated by the existence of separate fatherlands for hundreds and thousands of years."

"We love our language and our country"

"We are defenders of the socialist fatherland."

"The patriotism of a person who is prepared to hungry for three years rather than surrender Russia to foreigners is genuine patriotism, without which we could not hold our for three years. Without this patriotism we would not have succeeded the Soviet Republic...This is the finest revolutionary patriotism."

zimmerwald1915

7th May 2010, 04:15

I'd start with the prase in the programme, which defines the KKE as a 'profoundly patriotic party'. Do you think that communists are 'profoundly patriotic'?
Devrim, if you want to prove a party is Stalinist, simply pointing out its nationalism is not the way to do it. It only goes partway. There are many statements in the KKE's programme that mark it out as Stalinist:

From the time of its foundation, KKE steadfastly defended the USSR, the socialist system in Europe and the other socialist countries. It participated in the Communist International and in subsequent efforts by the international communist movement to create a common strategy against imperialism. It expressed its solidarity with the struggles of the world’s working class, with the peoples fighting for national liberation, democracy and socialism. KKE in turn, at critical and difficult periods in its struggle, also received international solidarity and support from the international communist and labour movement.

A small number of developed capitalist countries controls and exploits the greater part of global wealth. The dominant position among them is held by the United States, which is the leader in promoting the new world order. These same forces control the United Nations. The transformation of the UN into an agency for the international imposition of their will constitutes a flagrant violation of its founding principles and objectives...The former socialist countries of Europe have been transformed into a field of tough imperialist competition.

KKE’s concept of the building of socialism is based on Marxist-Leninist theory, and on enriching it with the conclusions and discussions of our Party and of the building of socialism in the 20th century. The building of socialism is governed by general laws that apply to all countries. The starting point for the transition of Greek society to socialism, the lowest level of communism, is: The revolutionary gaining of power by the working class in collaboration with its allies. The nationalisation of the main means of production. The socialist planning of the economy.
Stalinism is the defense of the theses of the Comintern after its 1926 Congress, and the defense of the domestic policies and geopolitical needs of the USSR and the bloc of countries constellated (hey, new word!) around it. The KKE defends all three.

CChocobo

7th May 2010, 07:48

So why would we support the KKE? I'm really surprised by people here thinking that it's wise to support this group. Everything i've read about them (by first hand accounts especially during the december 2008 uprisings) seem to be very counter productive.. They did things like beat and de-mask protesters, they would try to keep anarchists and students from occupying universities and schools, sometimes locking them out of the buildings to leave them at the mercy of the pigs.. They tried to protect the police when students and anarchists and many leftists alike were throwing rocks and molotovs at the police (let's not forget everyone was furious that the pigs murdered 15 year old Alexis Grigoropoulos) And here you have these people who are all about workers struggle taking the side of the state's armed thugs, and try to undermine their supposed comrades. It's the same exact thing Stalinsts always do, it's nothing new.. i.e. May uprising 1968, Spanish Civil War, Ukraine during the Russian Civil War.. although those are more extreme measures done in those instances by the CP.

The point is I think most people should be a little weary of just throwing their support behind the KKE because of their "political affiliation" and should concentrate more on their actions, and use their best judgment when it comes to supporting groups. I'm not trying to bash communists, i think communists and anarchists should definitely work together.. but i fail to see how committing actions as they have done time and time again proves to be useful to the struggle, let alone to make people more class conscious or even help the working class.

Anyways just my 2 cents. I hope this thing keeps going. Comrades need to band together. December of 2008 was just the spark of what's to come, this is an obvious clear signal..

vyborg

7th May 2010, 07:59

So why would we support the KKE? .

The problem is not what we think but where workers are. In the turmoil workers will rally behing their traditional organization. If they find there a marxist area the movement will go on, on the contrary the reformist-nationalist-stalinist leadership (that is Pasok-KKE-Syn leaders) will derail the movement

Znamya

7th May 2010, 08:13

It's the same exact thing Stalinsts always do
Seriously? What the hell have petit-bourgeois anarchists ever done for the working-class? All you people are doing in in Greece is playing the role of the Trojan horse inside the popular movement. You are giving an excuse for the bourgeois police to unleash a bloodbath with your mindless, adventurist actions. It is the KKE and its leadership alone that has the privilege of guiding the country's working-class, as this organization has done more than anyone else in fighting for freedom in Greece. Without the KKE, the present movement could not exist.

CChocobo

7th May 2010, 08:21

The problem is not what we think but where workers are. In the turmoil workers will rally behing their traditional organization. If they find there a marxist area the movement will go on, on the contrary the reformist-nationalist-stalinist leadership (that is Pasok-KKE-Syn leaders) will derail the movement

Very true. I'm actually over half way done reading this book "We Are An Image From the Future". Got it at AK Press. It talks about the December 2008 Insurrection. I find it interesting, how many of the anarchists mentioned how there were so many people on the streets yet of all different affiliations. Some were more interested in looting from the stores, things like tv's, watches, etc so they could sell them. They mentioned how a lot of the immigrants had their own agenda, and a lot of the unions, and other leftist groups. So you had a lot of different ideas, goals. I think people will always affiliate with whats familiar to them, what they think represents their views you know? But it's quite interesting how with that all aside during the occupations of the university, everyone worked together as a collective force.. i.e. cooking, cleaning, making molotovs, ripping up pavement for projectiles.

Seems most of the problems and differences were clear once on the streets. The anarchists, marxists, and other leftists wanted to target symbols of the state, capitalism, (the banks, police stations, big business) but some others who had no political affiliation would burn down the small stores, loot, etc. They actually mentioned at one of the universities if people showed up with stolen computers, tv's, etc, and asked if they could store their stolen items and stay there, the people occupying would ask them to contribute those objects for the fire to keep warm, or tell them they wouldn't be able to stay there just to store their objects. I think it's interesting that a lot of the movements did try to reach out to many people who passed through for food (people would organize groups to expropriate food from the grocery stores to feed the movement) they would write communiques, pass leaflets and pamphlets to those unfamiliar with what they were about..

Anyways i'm rambling WAY off topic, well based off what you said. But my point was simply you're right people to tend to associate themselves or follow what they see as supporting their cause, their view without realize it's true intentions. But i think there are many things being done to reach out to working class, poor, immigrants, etc to get them involved in the various movements actually fighting the state, and the government and their fascist policies. But to anyone who has not read this book or are interested about the history of activism, resistance, etc in Greece i suggest picking it up :thumbup1:

CChocobo

7th May 2010, 08:30

Seriously? What the hell have petit-bourgeois anarchists ever done for the working-class? All you people are doing in in Greece is playing the role of the Trojan horse inside the popular movement. You are giving an excuse for the bourgeois police to unleash a bloodbath with your mindless, adventurist actions. It is the KKE and its leadership alone that has the privilege of guiding the country's working-class, as this organization has done more than anyone else in fighting for freedom in Greece. Without the KKE, the present movement could not exist.

Comrade, I'd rather have a true Marxist group organizing the working class, than some Stalinist group that acts in a very reactionary matter when people are trying to organize. I fail to see how siding with the state and the police helps lead the working class closer to achieving their goals? I'm not saying the anarchists are perfect by all means, but they have done various things to reach out to people of different diverse groups, whether it be immigrants, foreigners, junkies, the homeless, working class, other leftists. Anarchists just aren't about burning banks and fighting cops you know. You act like thats all they ever did and all they ever do in protests or big movements in Greece. Maybe you're unfamiliar with other actions they undertook, and continue to undertake.

7th May 2010, 09:14

Full support to the KKE! :cool: It is marxist-leninist party so i don't understand how can people call them revisionists?!
:laugh:

Communists support national liberation struggle.In that sense you can consider 'profoundly patriotic'.
I believe in working class liberation, see. National liberation includes and always has included "liberating" a nation of people - the local Bourgeoisie fall under that category, too.

vyborg

7th May 2010, 09:27

:laugh:

I believe in working class liberation, see. National liberation includes and always has included "liberating" a nation of people - the local Bourgeoisie fall under that category, too.

The problem is that stalinists, under the excuse of national liberation, always alley themselves with national capitalist against imperialism (this is the essence of popular frontism). this tactic always ends in tears.

Smash capitalism! This means foreign as well as greek capitalists

7th May 2010, 10:45

The problem is that stalinists, under the excuse of national liberation, always alley themselves with national capitalist against imperialism (this is the essence of popular frontism). this tactic always ends in tears.

Smash capitalism! This means foreign as well as greek capitalists
Yet the KKE seems to be explicitly targetting foreign Bourgeoisie.

vyborg

7th May 2010, 11:08

Yet the KKE seems to be explicitly targetting foreign Bourgeoisie.

So what? The nazy killed a lot of bourgeois. Not only jews but also french and british bourgeois.

To attack the IMF and not your own capitalist is not socialism, it is nationalism. The Laos is doing the same right now. The workers of the KKE deserve a lot better

FSL

7th May 2010, 11:14

7th May 2010, 11:15

So what? The nazy killed a lot of bourgeois. Not only jews but also french and british bourgeois.

To attack the IMF and not your own capitalist is not socialism, it is nationalism. The Laos is doing the same right now. The workers of the KKE deserve a lot better
True that.
Although I think you misinterpreted my position. My position is against the KKE, not for it.

vyborg

7th May 2010, 11:21

My position is not against neither for the KKE. I distinguish between stalinist and reformist leaders and workers of the KKE.

vyborg

7th May 2010, 11:21

It would be useful if people didn't speak for things they obviously know nothing about.

I agree. But this do not solve the problem greek workers face right now: a reactionary stalinist or reformist leadership

BeerShaman

7th May 2010, 11:57

FSL

7th May 2010, 12:08

My position is not against neither for the KKE. I distinguish between stalinist and reformist leaders and workers of the KKE.

You can so as you please, the "workers of KKE" however make no such distinction.

bie

7th May 2010, 12:51

KKE follows a centralization program within its bonds like most marxist parties. Thus,decisions and movements are firstly started by the central council and the members have no freedom, but to express whether they like or dislike something. They don't start initiations. It has hierarchy. Additionally it has an office for typography and printing and a tv channel "902" and a radio channel "902", its newspaper "Rizospastis" along with its channels play and contain commercials etc... It's "sold"... I'd say reformist.
Typical ultraleftist. The term "reformist" does not refer to the organization type but to the political program. Reformist parties (eg. socialdemocrats) want to make changes and corrections inside the capitalist system. Revolutionary parties (eg. KKE) aims in abolishing capitalist relations of production and building socialist ones, based on a different principle. In this case there is a change of the class in power - that is why it is called a revoution. In former- a class in power remains intact, therefore they are reformistic.

By the way - if you don't like the way how the party is organized (ie. principle of democratic centralism) - maybe you have a better idea how to build a strong, militant and influential group that will be able to fight and defeat joined forces of army/police/industry/media/finance capital - bourgeoisie??

vyborg

7th May 2010, 12:53

You can so as you please, the "workers of KKE" however make no such distinction.

Luckily...the 50s are over...so obviously they do and they will do more and more. That's why in the last years the KKE leadership has been forced to expel a lot lot of people...

BeerShaman

7th May 2010, 14:00

Typical ultraleftist. The term "reformist" does not refer to the organization type but to the political program. Reformist parties (eg. socialdemocrats) want to make changes and corrections inside the capitalist system. Revolutionary parties (eg. KKE) aims in abolishing capitalist relations of production and building socialist ones, based on a different principle. In this case there is a change of the class in power - that is why it is called a revoution. In former- a class in power remains intact, therefore they are reformistic.

By the way - if you don't like the way how the party is organized (ie. principle of democratic centralism) - maybe you have a better idea how to build a strong, militant and influential group that will be able to fight and defeat joined forces of army/police/industry/media/finance capital - bourgeoisie??

I know what reformism is. By using this word i am referring to the claim that KKE may build some sort of socialdemocratic government rather than some sort of socialistic front so as to fight capitalism and the state, because of what I already have mentionned.

Anyway, yes, I can propose a better system... :blink::(:rolleyes::) What if instead of enforcing the party, somebody started a self-organised team with views to destroy capitalism and authority. One starts here (there are already), one there ,one there and they co-operate if need be. These teams are called collectives and every such has its armed forces, its meeting / assembly / discussions every now and then (regularly) where there is no hierarchy and everyone's word has the power that it would have without any ranks e.t.c. Thus one's word and reasoning are subjects to analyze and consider. Everyone is equal. What makes somebody more or less effective or influential is just his/her personnality/rationnality/knowledge e.t.c... After every assembly all people together have reached a consensus about every matter interesting them and then actions are made. In fact collective assemblies and actions are made continuously, regularly and fast. As a result every decision is taken by the whole team and every subject is responsible for his/her actions and words. Whoever bad, non-wanted gets logically isolated until hes/she realizes what has led to it and then changes again. It's just pure and free natural way of working on matters. No violence, no pushing, no ranks, no hierarchy, just need, thoughts, actions and abilities. Like CNT - FAI or ESE or AK or IWI work...

Die Neue Zeit

7th May 2010, 14:46

Comrade, I'd rather have a true Marxist group organizing the working class, than some Stalinist group that acts in a very reactionary matter when people are trying to organize. I fail to see how siding with the state and the police helps lead the working class closer to achieving their goals? I'm not saying the anarchists are perfect by all means, but they have done various things to reach out to people of different diverse groups, whether it be immigrants, foreigners, junkies, the homeless, working class, other leftists. Anarchists just aren't about burning banks and fighting cops you know. You act like thats all they ever did and all they ever do in protests or big movements in Greece. Maybe you're unfamiliar with other actions they undertook, and continue to undertake.

That raises a theoretical question: should revolutionary demonstrators isolate Black Bloc hooligans and practically hand them over to the cops?

I definitely think the KKE makes too long a brush, though (re. every anarchist).

bie

7th May 2010, 15:27

What if instead of enforcing the party, somebody started a self-organised team with views to destroy capitalism and authority...
I am afraid it would fail shortly.. Due to the lack of coordination, higher degree of organization, lack of discipline, planning etc. bourgeoisie would smash it immediately. They have hierarchy, discipline and scientific ways of building its power. They are like an army. That's why their power is so strong and they are so efficient. How can we face this machine while scattered and unorganized? Look what happened it Spain in XIX century:

Engels offers an apposite account of an uprising in Spain in 1872-73 in which anarchists seized power in municipalities across the country. At first, the situation looked promising. The king had abdicated and the bourgeois government could muster but a few thousand ill-trained troops. Yet this ragtag force prevailed because it faced a thoroughly parochialized rebellion. "Each town proclaimed itself as a sovereign canton and set up a revolutionary committee (junta)," Engels writes. "[E]ach town acted on its own, declaring that the important thing was not cooperation with other towns but separation from them, thus precluding any possibility of a combined attack [against bourgeois forces]." It was "the fragmentation and isolation of the revolutionary forces which enabled the government troops to smash one revolt after the other."

(from: http://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/archives/2009/01/27/left_anticommun_1.php - whole text is worth reading by the way).

BeerShaman

7th May 2010, 20:41

I am afraid it would fail shortly.. Due to the lack of coordination, higher degree of organization, lack of discipline, planning etc. bourgeoisie would smash it immediately. They have hierarchy, discipline and scientific ways of building its power. They are like an army. That's why their power is so strong and they are so efficient. How can we face this machine while scattered and unorganized? Look what happened it Spain in XIX century:

(from: http://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/archives/2009/01/27/left_anticommun_1.php - whole text is worth reading by the way).

It will be neither scattered, neither disorganised. As mentionned already collectives can co-operate and communicate continuously. Just take greek anarchist teams as an example. By searching and learning them you will find out that they are enough orgnanised and that easily they can make huge steps in such domains.

BeerShaman

7th May 2010, 20:45

That raises a theoretical question: should revolutionary demonstrators isolated Black Bloc hooligans and practically hand them over to the cops?

I definitely think the KKE makes too long a brush (re. every anarchist).

Yes, I agree. Hooligans should be isolated. (I don't consider handing them to cops, because I do not trust the state.) It's just that the anarchist movement must keep hooliganism out of its plans and thus, hooligans and luben riff raff out of its bonds. We are not in a satisfactory period. I am disappointed by some anarchist organisations at a point, however impressed by others more syndicalist and more dealing with the work places e.t.c.. e.t.c...

BeerShaman

7th May 2010, 20:48

It is also particularly true that hooliganism has made a critical blow to my movement. Especially these days. Such things are really disappointing. However, many claim that the killing action in the bank with the 3 victims was a propaganda reaching Goebel's levels of hypocrisy and evil. Who knows?:confused::(:crying:

In addition, even IN THE CASE OF FAILURE, I prefer a death by the fascists and the capitalists during class war than a socialist state which never leads to communism but instead disintegrates.

gorillafuck

7th May 2010, 21:18

The Hoxhaists in Greece rightfully criticized the opposition of the "K"KE to the protests in 2009
What do they do? I usually don't make criticisms like that but I want to know. I only know one person who knows what a Hoxhaist even is.

I'm so glad people like you get the boot immediately.
Jesus...

Ps No, I'm an atheist
"If you have a party where if you shout a slogan at a protest that the party dont aprove,or if you go out with an anarchist or a leftist girl,you ll get deleted by the party,join it and tell me how do you like it."

Do these criticisms have any grounding?

Honggweilo

7th May 2010, 22:02

"If you have a party where if you shout a slogan at a protest that the party dont aprove,or if you go out with an anarchist or a leftist girl,you ll get deleted by the party,join it and tell me how do you like it."

Do these criticisms have any grounding?

This not the case with high placed KNE members studying abroad i can assure you

CChocobo

8th May 2010, 05:46

That raises a theoretical question: should revolutionary demonstrators isolate Black Bloc hooligans and practically hand them over to the cops?

I definitely think the KKE makes too long a brush (re. every anarchist).

Yes very true. It's obvious hooliganism doesn't achieve much of anything. I think in Greek society it kind of holds a special status as legitimate resistance against the cops, the state, capitalism etc. I think it's good for them to defend themselves, but the issue lies in that anarchists shouldn't ever just concentrate on acts of violence against police or the institutions. We have to remember that the key to bring about change is organizing, and working with comrades, showing people why anarchism/(communism too! don't want to alienate anyone. :p) works, and why it's a better alternative for them.

It's kind of like the debates of urban guerrilla movements. They do little to organize the working class for their cause and in the end it changes nothing except causes the state to act in a repressive manner.. I don't think they should be left at the mercy of the cops. The anarchists i mean. They may commit acts like that but at the same time they do usually still help to organize occupations, make leaflets, hold discussions etc. I think the real issue is when you have these types of revolts, not everyone is "rioting" for the same issues, some are smashing and burning so they can loot, with no political affiliation. I think those people need to be dealt with in some way. Maybe try to bring them over to our side, or explain to these people how capitalism, the state, being poor or homeless, how everything is intertwined, and why it's something we all need to start fighting against.

S.Artesian

8th May 2010, 06:45

That raises a theoretical question: should revolutionary demonstrators isolate Black Bloc hooligans and practically hand them over to the cops?

I definitely think the KKE makes too long a brush (re. every anarchist).

I can think of no better way for Marxists, revolutionists of any sort, to disgrace themselves, disqualify themselves from an claim to being Marxists or revolutionists than by turning over "black bloc" or any "ultra-left" over to the cops.

What does that make the groups performing such functions other than agents of the police, agents of the bourgeoisie?

Got a better idea, why don't you insist that the bourgeois state and its police turn over the head of the bank who made the workers stay in that bank and await their deaths to an organized committee of the demonstrators for trial?

Why not organize a a workers' guard to arrest the heads of all the banks, and to arrest the leaders of the previous and current ruling party.

Turn people over to the cops? You ought to be ashamed of yourself. That's not a "theoretical question." That's the question of which side of the class line you're on.

Hey, why don't you just arrest and execute them yourself. That worked so well during the Spanish Civil War, didn't it?

Disgraceful.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

8th May 2010, 08:01

That raises a theoretical question: should revolutionary demonstrators isolate Black Bloc hooligans and practically hand them over to the cops?

This is an unparalleled low, even for you Jake.

vyborg

8th May 2010, 08:16

CChocobo

8th May 2010, 09:04

I think the workers stewardship of a demo when provocateurs start to make nois (as black block do) have to isolate them and punish them phisically so that they will think twice, next time, to try to infiltrate again.

Not hand them to the cops but break some ass yes...

Question.

Are you referring to just people who are rioting for the sake of it. Or the insurrectionist anarchists? I think there's better ways to deal with actions some people do. The issue is a lot deeper than that. Anarchists have always felt like it's the obligation to fight back against the cops, if the cops beat someone or arrest someone they wont stand idly by they'll fight back. It's a lot different than say here in the states, or in a lot of other countries.

If all they want to do is burn banks, throw rocks etc etc. Fine don't work with them, but i don't think that represents anarchists in greece or elsewhere. As long as they're still organizing comrades, and putting their ideas into practice, like forming assemblies, discussing ideas of where to go from there, how to put their ideas into play i see no harm. The thing is their ideas of resistance of fighting back is something that's been heavily ingrained since the dictatorship in the 60's-70's and since then has continued on and on through the younger generations.

vyborg

8th May 2010, 12:50

I dont know if these assholes are infiltrated cops or simple idiots. I dont think is relevant anyway. When there is a mass demo, you go to them and tell them: look mates do not try to come towards us, if you try to come closer to the demo we will send you to the hospital. Thats' it. They can do whatever they lunacy suggests to them but not when and where workers are doing a demo.

CChocobo

9th May 2010, 07:09

vyborg

9th May 2010, 08:18

CChocobo

9th May 2010, 09:04

They can do watever they want. Provided that they dont mix with workers hence allowing the police to attack the workers demo.

Once that the workers are clearly separated from these gentlemen, the thing is clear. The workers protest againts the governement and the bouregoisie and these guys smash windows. No problem.

But if they try to come towards the rally so that, surprise surprise, the tv can represents workers as idiots and cops can attack the rally, the stewards have to stop them

I don't think you realize though that the cops will attack the rally REGARDLESS. The pigs are there to protect the interests of the rich and upper class. There's plenty of instances where police do things and somehow try to "justify" it.

I don't see why you think all anarchists do is burn banks and smash windows. Yes they tend to do such things but i think it's kind of silly to act like they don't contribute to workers movements when anarchists have always played a big role in workers movements in history. Just because they don't march under the banner of a union or any party doesn't make them any less involved in workers demos.

The mainstream media isn't going to reflect it in a positive light. It's all corporate owned media, you think they will show it positively? It'll briefly be mentioned if that. And if it is covered it will be generalized as a small gathering blah blah. Look at the insurrection in 2008, the media portrayed it as youths and students rioting over a teen's death. In reality it was in response to the repression that ALWAYS goes on by the police. That was basically the last straw, anarchists, students, workers, immigrants, everyone who wanted to fight against capitalism, the state, police oppression, racism, fascism. All those emotions erupted. Of course the media won't portray as such.

So don't get your hopes up that the mainstream media will show any demonstration positively.

S.Artesian

9th May 2010, 16:11

They can do watever they want. Provided that they dont mix with workers hence allowing the police to attack the workers demo.

Once that the workers are clearly separated from these gentlemen, the thing is clear. The workers protest againts the governement and the bouregoisie and these guys smash windows. No problem.

But if they try to come towards the rally so that, surprise surprise, the tv can represents workers as idiots and cops can attack the rally, the stewards have to stop them

The universe is not quite as orderly, limited, closed, hermetic as you might wish it to be, comrade.

In the real world, nobody appointed you to be the voice of the mass of the demonstrations. You are not yet the peoples' tribune.

In the real world, the workers might want to mix with them, the anarchists; might actually welcome their militancy and combativeness into the battle. Of course this is a question of timing, tactics, and correlation of forces; all the more reason to not immediately, automatically, and irrevocably eliminate, disqualify a section of militants.

In the real world, the "anarchists," "ultra-lefts," "enrages" might be conducting their operations completely separate and apart from the main body of demonstrations-- separate and apart in either space or time or both-- which shows how incomplete, and weak, your supposed strong-arm methods are in providing your solution to your problem. The cops however are not known for making such fine distinctions in time and space, so your ass will be grass under their lawnmower anyway.

If you want to "disarm" black-bloc-ers you have to do it by actually under-cutting the need for those types of activities-- not by pretending to be cops, but through the organization of the revolutionary struggle as anti-cop, anti-bourgeois, anti-"law and order;" by creating the combat organization of the entire working class, or what is commonly as organs of revolutionary power that will overthrow the ruling class. Try it with workers' militias whose goal is not to combat the "ultra-lefts" but rather to protect the entire mass of the struggle from the police.

Die Neue Zeit

9th May 2010, 16:31

I can think of no better way for Marxists, revolutionists of any sort, to disgrace themselves, disqualify themselves from an claim to being Marxists or revolutionists than by turning over "black bloc" or any "ultra-left" over to the cops.

What does that make the groups performing such functions other than agents of the police, agents of the bourgeoisie?

Got a better idea, why don't you insist that the bourgeois state and its police turn over the head of the bank who made the workers stay in that bank and await their deaths to an organized committee of the demonstrators for trial?

I didn't even say that "Black Bloc"-istas were ultra-left. They're just hooligans, and not even insurrectionist anarchists. I made similar remarks in the "Anarchism: Time For Regrouping" thread:

I never said to turn anarchists over to the cops. Also, there are profound differences between insurrectionist anarchists and mere pseudo-anarkiddie hooligans.

This attack on a Greek bank could be construed to be an insurrectionist and not hooligan act. Hooligans tend to target small shops. The latter group should be turned in.

I said the KKE had an overly broad brush because of its sectarianism.

That last question of yours is a good idea, too.

To all of you guys freaked out by my response: again, I'm with Chocobo and vyborg in defending anarchists, but I'm just upping the ante against mere hooligans. Vyborg's suggested tactic is commendable for being more preventative (threats to beat the living shit out of hooligans), but in case hooligans have penetrated worker protests, they should be beaten up and then handed over.

S.Artesian

9th May 2010, 17:20

I didn't even say that "Black Bloc"-istas were ultra-left. They're just hooligans, and not even insurrectionist anarchists. I made similar remarks in the "Anarchism: Time For Regrouping" thread:

Methinks DNZ protests too much or has a narcissistic disorder. Where did I say you said? What makes you take this so personally. You posed a "theoretical" question. I provided a assessment of the practical results of such theoretical actions.

Devrim

9th May 2010, 18:55

I didn't even say that "Black Bloc"-istas were ultra-left. They're just hooligans, and not even insurrectionist anarchists.

I don't agree very much with the tactics of the Greek anarchists, but calling them 'just hooligans' is the line of the state and the Stalinists.

in case hooligans have penetrated worker protests, they should be beaten up and then handed over.

Calling for people to be handed over to the police is absolutely outrageous. It is not an action that could be defended by any socialist.

Devrim

Black Sheep

9th May 2010, 19:13

I didn't even say that "Black Bloc"-istas were ultra-left. They're just hooligans, and not even insurrectionist anarchists.
They're all hooligans, in the same way that all marxists are obsessive stalinist monsters, and all trotskyists use the trotskyist pick up lines.

Max1917

9th May 2010, 23:26

I believe in working class liberation, see. National liberation includes and always has included "liberating" a nation of people - the local Bourgeoisie fall under that category, too.

It's obvious because you advocate council communism.Marxist-Leninist belive that national-liberation is progressive step toward socialist revolution,same as French bourgeois revolution was progressive step in history for all marxists. ;)

bie

9th May 2010, 23:29

So I've heard the KKE be called a lot of things, reformist, revisionist, class collaborationist, etc. Any truth there or is it bullshit?
It is bullshit.:)

S.Artesian

9th May 2010, 23:37

It is bullshit.:)

History is going to provide us with the definitive answer to that. Your "bullshit" might be premature, outdated or both. We're going to find out, that's for certain.

bie

9th May 2010, 23:50

S.Artesian

10th May 2010, 00:20

Sure. But assuming optimistic variant - we can expect that along with the successes of KKE, this Party will face more and more criticism from the enemies of the people. I wonder how much of this will be pick up by the ultra-left.

Over here in the US we say, "You know what "assume" is, dont you? It's making an ASS out of U and ME."

the last donut of the night

10th May 2010, 00:43

DNZ:

Interestingly enough, the state sees us ALL as hooligans too. Should we hand ourselves over?

Stop being a dick and defending the pigs.

Charles Xavier

10th May 2010, 01:02

KKE are good communists an example for the rest of Europe and the world to follow.

CChocobo

10th May 2010, 03:19

KKE are good communists an example for the rest of Europe and the world to follow.

Wrong they're stalinists and they're reactionaries.

Die Neue Zeit

10th May 2010, 04:24

I don't agree very much with the tactics of the Greek anarchists, but calling them 'just hooligans' is the line of the state and the Stalinists.

I'm just evoking the line of the Second International when they (rightfully) booted out the anarchist presence from the newfound organization. Keep in mind that said anarchist presence was a lot less hooliganistic than the pseudo-anarchist hooligans today.

Charles Xavier

10th May 2010, 04:27

Wrong they're stalinists and they're reactionaries.
Your face is reactionary.

CChocobo

10th May 2010, 04:50

Your face is reactionary.

jerk! D:

S.Artesian

10th May 2010, 05:27

I'm just evoking the line of the Second International when they (rightfully) booted out the anarchist presence from the newfound organization. Keep in mind that said anarchist presence was a lot less hooliganistic than the pseudo-anarchist hooligans today.

And it's a mere coincidence that the line of the Second International conforms to the line of the bourgeois state. Nothing but a coincidence. Nothing to be read into that, I assure you, just as the emergence, unmasking of the 2nd International as nothing but the lapdog/handmaiden/caretaker/set-up artist for the bourgeois state was a mere coincidence.

If there's anything that can make me appreciate anarchists, it's evoking the line of the Second International, an organization which played such a vital role in being so lethal for the working class .

Die Neue Zeit

10th May 2010, 05:32

S.Artesian

10th May 2010, 05:52

The Second International, for all its faults and eventual failure to overthrow the bourgeois hegemonic supremacy and conquer policy-making and other ruling-class political power for the proletariat, was the last worker-class International:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/needed-revived-second-t128934/index.html

That's a nice way of putting it -- "for all its faults and eventual failure to overthrow the bourgeois..."

Take the marbles out of your mouth when you talk about history, comrade, and how about we actually examine those faults, not obscure them with an attempt at Shakespearean tragedy-- of human frailty collapsing under the weight of its own ambitions and talents. .

How about this-- despite its pretenses at being a Marxist international, the 2nd International could do nothing more than provide support for the bourgeoisie's grand immolation of the working class of Europe, and do nothing less but, whenever given the opportunity, make sure that capitalism would drive into the future on road paved with flesh and bones?

How about that? Sound accurate to you? Certainly sounds more accurate than your mealy-mouth equivocating euphemisms.

Die Neue Zeit

10th May 2010, 06:07

Sects are incapable of organizing the working class as a whole. Please read the thread content.

S.Artesian

10th May 2010, 06:27

Sects are incapable of organizing the working class as a whole. Please read the thread content.

Sure will. Count on it.

Devrim

10th May 2010, 06:35

S.Artesian

10th May 2010, 06:43

Sects are incapable of organizing the working class as a whole. Please read the thread content.

So are those who refer to the 4th International as "nutter groups."

I certainly wasn't the least bit surprised by the blossoming romance between you and Cockshott-- he of the "have the EU pay for defense" revolutionary sloganeering vs. the "economism" of agitating for actual expropriation of the bourgeoisie.

And I'm not surprised by your pejorative references to the 4th Intl-- to those groups who actually tried to reverse the retreat of the proletariat's revolution, and stood opposed to the popular fronts etc. etc.

Not surprised at all. I think the 4th Intl was doomed from the getgo.

However those whose abilities to actually evaluate history are so impaired as to call the 4th International a "nutter group" while at the same time intent on performing CPR on the maggot ridden corpse of the 2nd Intl, need to get a check up from the neck up-- because you have to be nuts to put your mouth on the lips of that bag of bones.

Paul Cockshott

10th May 2010, 15:22

I certainly wasn't the least bit surprised by the blossoming romance between you and Cockshott-- he of the "have the EU pay for defense" revolutionary sloganeering vs. the "economism" of agitating for actual expropriation of the bourgeoisie.

I am not going to defend what DNZ may say about anarchism, but I suggest that you actually look at what i am arguing for:
http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/transition-to-21st-century-socialism-in-the-european-union/6443810?showPreview

or

http://www.puk.de/en/nhp/puk-downloads/socialism-xxi-english/32-transition-to-21st-century-socialism-in-the-european-union.html

The argument I make there is that the aim of Nationalisation or expropriation by the state, can be seen in hindsight as a social democratic recipe that was quite distinct from Marx's ideas set out in the Critique of the Gotha Programme. Instead of postponing the abolition of wage labour to the indefinite future as Social Democracy in all its variants does, 21st century socialism should bring that objective to the forefront.

S.Artesian

10th May 2010, 15:30

I am not going to defend what DNZ may say about anarchism, but I suggest that you actually look at what i am arguing for:
http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/transition-to-21st-century-socialism-in-the-european-union/6443810?showPreview

The argument I make there is that the aim of Nationalisation or expropriation by the state, can be seen in hindsight as a social democratic recipe that was quite distinct from Marx's ideas set out in the Critique of the Gotha Programme. Instead of postponing the abolition of wage labour to the indefinite future as Social Democracy in all its variants does, 21st century socialism should bring that objective to the forefront.

I quite agree that nationalizaton by the state is in no way shape of form a revolutionary demand-- the bourgeoisie are amenable to nationalization when it serves their interests, which means pays the interest.

I have never advocated nationalization by the state as a minimum, maximum or transitional demand, or element of of a revolutionary program.

Yes, it's all about abolishing wage-labor. For that, the fundamental requirement is the organization of the wage-laborers in mechanisms of class unity, separate, apart, and opposed to the organization of the bourgeoisie in its mechanisms of control-- like the EU Commission.

If nationalization is not a revolutionary demand, nor a transitional one, why then do you advocated the "passing on" of "big ticket items" like defense to the EU, rather than the abolition of defense spending?

S.Artesian

10th May 2010, 15:37

Read it. I think it's ambiguous, interesting, pedestrian, different,etc. Is there a printable format available so I can take it point by point and then provide some sort of synopsis of my agreements, disagreements?

Philzer

10th May 2010, 17:17

Hi AttackGr and comrades !

I will try to understand you.

I dont hate on KKE..... and I am pro KKE in a discusion with a right winger.

At one side there is the decision to be a left. At the other hand we have to fight for a new scientific view of the world and for a new ruler-structure in a communism society.
(I don’t belief in anarchism -> paradoxes of three-dimensional freedom -> three-dimensional freedom kills itself)

The problem of the lefts worldwide is that there is no new thinking-model. And as a result of this many lefts unknowingly takeover parts of ideology from bourgeoisie like esoteric pluralism
(freedom of opinion and much more) without understanding of the working principles of this.

Example: freedom of opinion needs material corruption and participation of exploitation of world and other people etc...

I just wished it was more democratic.

So I’m afraid you don’t know what democracy is. Democracy was never and will never be nothing else than an ideology of exploiter in the sense of Marx. See my analysis (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html).

If you sleep a little about this you will find there is no way to overtake esoteric pluralism (democracy) in any kind of communism. I agree with you that we don’t need Stalinism again. It is falsified by practice. Soviet Union never exists.

The problem which we have to solve is to get a scientific pluralism with excluding of opportunism. I think it is a really hard problem to solve.
-> Free opinion of an individual in capitalism is absolutely unimportant -> only capital is the ruling instrument
-> In communism “scientific pluralism” has to replace the ruling-function of capital

But there is no other way then to self creates what we want to have!

PS: I’m in an independent left-group, and one of us is a Greek. So I have closely information about your situation.

Have a nice day!

bie

10th May 2010, 17:24

I agree with you that we don’t need Stalinism again. It is falsified by practice.
Hmm.. How "is it falsified by practice"? I fail to see it. The period of 1917-1956 was the time of the biggest expansion of socialist relations ever, huge economic, cultural and political success. SU from a semi-colony became a powerful and efficient modern country. In 10 years from 1928-1938 it was possible to make a social progress comparable to 100 years of based on exploitation progress of capitalist states. In one generation it was possible to bring almost 200 mln peasants from the middle ages to the XX century. And you are telling me that "stalinism" "was falsified by pracitce"?? You must be joking, comrade.

CChocobo

10th May 2010, 18:36

Hmm.. How "is it falsified by practice"? I fail to see it. The period of 1917-1956 was the time of the biggest expansion of socialist relations ever, huge economic, cultural and political success. SU from a semi-colony became a powerful and efficient modern country. In 10 years from 1928-1938 it was possible to make a social progress comparable to 100 years of based on exploitation progress of capitalist states. In one generation it was possible to bring almost 200 mln peasants from the middle ages to the XX century. And you are telling me that "stalinism" "was falsified by pracitce"?? You must be joking, comrade.

Stalinism really!?
Defend pol pot while you're at it. Statists are all the same, they will exploit the people under them use their armed thugs (police, military) to crush any dissent. I fail to see how that's a great thing for any workers movement.

CChocobo

10th May 2010, 18:41

Sects are incapable of organizing the working class as a whole. Please read the thread content.
How about may day? You know fighting for the 8 hour day? back in the 1880's. And the CNT in spain had a HUGE number of members, not to mention they were workers, working class people. Not hooligans..
You make it pretty obvious you would be the type to turn on comrades to protect your ideology i.e. PCE in Spain, KKE Greece, bolsheviks in ukraine. etc etc

Honggweilo

10th May 2010, 19:21

You make it pretty obvious you would be the type to turn on comrades to protect your ideology i.e. PCE in Spain, KKE Greece, bolsheviks in ukraine. etc etc

Since when is Marxism-Leninism Jacobs ideology?

FSL

10th May 2010, 23:04

Stalinism really!?

Don't be so surprised.

S.Artesian

10th May 2010, 23:10

Got the pdf from the second link. Thanks.

Paul Cockshott

10th May 2010, 23:37

I quite agree that nationalizaton by the state is in no way shape of form a revolutionary demand-- the bourgeoisie are amenable to nationalization when it serves their interests, which means pays the interest.

I have never advocated nationalization by the state as a minimum, maximum or transitional demand, or element of of a revolutionary program.
You may not do so, but it was in the Communist Manifesto, and was the bedrock of 20th century socialist policy. Marx later de-emphasised it and emphasised the free association of producers, but this was not a very influential idea.

Yes, it's all about abolishing wage-labor. For that, the fundamental requirement is the organization of the wage-laborers in mechanisms of class unity, separate, apart, and opposed to the organization of the bourgeoisie in its mechanisms of control-- like the EU Commission.

I would say that it required winning political power, you know, that old point about winning the battle for democracy. You are quite right that the commission is a purely capitalistic administrative institution, but a EU state is in the process of formation and politics is always a battle to either control or influence state power. A purely national politics today can not address issues either of democracy or economy.

If nationalization is not a revolutionary demand, nor a transitional one, why then do you advocated the "passing on" of "big ticket items" like defense to the EU, rather than the abolition of defense spending?

Well here is some debate on another forum related to these questions.

On 2010-04-30 11:33, Paul Cockshott wrote:
> At the same time they set their face against any transformation of the EU that would have strengthened the tax raising and spending powers of the European Parliament. The crisis in Greece, and shortly in Portugal, stems ultimately from this. The Eurozone is a monetary federation without the federal government tax and spend powers that have been essential to the functioning of earlier monetary federations like Germany or the USA. If the EU parliament had the power to levy income and property taxes across the Union, the current crisis in Greece would not be happening. A large part of the expenditure now met by the Greek Government would be being met by the Union out of general Union taxation: defence, pensions, perhaps medical costs.
>
> Union taxes would, as in any other federal state act as a means of redistributing income between richer and poorer areas. Within the UK, Northern Ireland, being a relatively impoverished area, receives a greater per-capita share of central taxes.
>
> But all this would have run counter to the neo-liberal agenda. Social democratic politics having been exorcised at the national level, could not be allowed to return at the Union level. Thus there was no question of the Union having the tax raising powers necessary to provide for example common EU pensions or an EU health service free at the point of need across the continent.
>
> If the left can not pose issues relating to the financial and tax structure of the Union, there is both the threat of nationalism re-emerging as the main discourse, and the immediate threat of drastic losses in social services across several nations.
>

This addresses a very urgent issue. If one wants a political union of
any size along with a common currency the existence of a sovereign
state---in this case a federal European state---that can transfer
credits within it is imperative. The current configuration of the EU is
not only economically unstable but politically as well because it
presupposes that individual nation-states, in this case Germany, will
bail out other 'national' economies.

This will risk to further push the conflict into antagonisms between
'nations' rather than between classes, unless the Left forces can
polarize the question along the latter dimension instead. Perhaps the
joint crises of Portugal, Spain, Ireland and Greece could lead the way
to such cross-national working class politics.

Incidentally I just read that one of India's most prominent economists,
Jayati Ghosh, has been making a similar analysis as you:

A Greek tragedy
Jayati Ghosh

"The euro has always been an unlikely major currency, based as it is
on monetary union between countries that do not share political
union. Its creation was remarkable, a tribute to idealism and a
reflection of the triumph of political will over economic barriers.
To outsiders, it is a fascinating experiment, since its apparent
stability thus far calls into question a belief that was
axiomatically held by many economists: that monetary union is
difficult if not impossible without fiscal federalism underpinned by
more comprehensive political union."
<http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/20100521271012200.htm (https://owa2.dcs.gla.ac.uk/owa/redir.aspx?C=1035ca924bad4e228aff9be6afcb5520&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.frontlineonnet.com%2fstories% 2f20100521271012200.htm)>

Die Neue Zeit

11th May 2010, 00:57

How about may day? You know fighting for the 8 hour day? back in the 1880's. And the CNT in spain had a HUGE number of members, not to mention they were workers, working class people. Not hooligans..
You make it pretty obvious you would be the type to turn on comrades to protect your ideology i.e. PCE in Spain, KKE Greece, bolsheviks in ukraine. etc etc

Anarcho-syndicalists aren't hooligans, though. They don't go to every single protest to smash small shop windows and the like.

Delenda Carthago

11th May 2010, 12:48

blah blah blah.
die

Delenda Carthago

11th May 2010, 13:13

And btw, you stupid fuckin fuck: Carlos was Workers Autonomy,not anarchist.Marxist,you know?

S.Artesian

11th May 2010, 13:30

So called Marxists-Leninists boasting about handing people over to the police.... what a disgrace to Marx and Lenin.

Every little would-be bureaucrat really wants to be a cop in his heart.

Devrim

11th May 2010, 13:37

if anarrkids want to dieGOOD,let them do it theirselves.:cool: one less counter revolutionary for us to worry about.

if you stand in our way,you might get handed to the police.do it for,your own risk anarkids.

Suggesting that people should be handed over to the police is outrageous.

Laughing at those murder by the state is absolutely disgusting.

I would suggest that you seriously reflect on what you are saying.

Devrim

the last donut of the night

12th May 2010, 02:46

How about may day? You know fighting for the 8 hour day? back in the 1880's. And the CNT in spain had a HUGE number of members, not to mention they were workers, working class people. Not hooligans..
You make it pretty obvious you would be the type to turn on comrades to protect your ideology i.e. PCE in Spain, KKE Greece, bolsheviks in ukraine. etc etc

Uhm, anarchists didn't fight for the 8 hour day. Nor did communists. Sure, we were involved in all these struggles, but not as sects, but as workers. Workers fight for reforms, not communists by themselves. Your examples don't really prove that anarchism is superior as an ideology.

the last donut of the night

12th May 2010, 02:49

if anarrkids want to dieGOOD,let them do it theirselves.:cool: one less counter revolutionary for us to worry about.

if you stand in our way,you might get handed to the police.do it for,your own risk anarkids.

Honestly, you can burn in hell. You're a class-traitor who wishes nothing higher than the amputation and immolation of the working class because sectarianism is more important than the struggle for a better lives.

Ban this fucker.

CChocobo

12th May 2010, 08:27

Uhm, anarchists didn't fight for the 8 hour day. Nor did communists. Sure, we were involved in all these struggles, but not as sects, but as workers. Workers fight for reforms, not communists by themselves. Your examples don't really prove that anarchism is superior as an ideology.

Comrade, i'm not trying to argue that anarchism is a better ideology. I just have a problem when people decide they're gonna label all anarchists as burning banks, smashing windows. It just annoys me when people say anarchists haven't done anything or don't do anything for workers struggle, when they have.

chegitz guevara

12th May 2010, 13:52

To talk about what anarchists did a life time or more ago, and then compare them to today's anarchists is not a valid method of argumentation, as there are clear differences between the two.

S.Artesian

12th May 2010, 13:58

To talk about what anarchists did a life time or more ago, and then compare them to today's anarchists is not a valid method of argumentation, as there are clear differences between the two.

Let's try and keep that in mind when we talk about the glorious actions of big-C communists and capital L Leninists.

CChocobo

13th May 2010, 06:09

Let's try and keep that in mind when we talk about the glorious actions of big-C communists and capital L Leninists.

Yep. Last time i checked anarchists never betrayed any movement they championed for. i.e. "All power to the soviets!"

REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL

16th May 2010, 06:49

Chambered Word

17th May 2010, 14:20

So are there any legitimate criticisms of the KKE (besides the obvious fact that they're Stalinists) supported by evidence? I'd like to know this.

Hmm.. How "is it falsified by practice"? I fail to see it. The period of 1917-1956 was the time of the biggest expansion of socialist relations ever, huge economic, cultural and political success. SU from a semi-colony became a powerful and efficient modern country. In 10 years from 1928-1938 it was possible to make a social progress comparable to 100 years of based on exploitation progress of capitalist states. In one generation it was possible to bring almost 200 mln peasants from the middle ages to the XX century. And you are telling me that "stalinism" "was falsified by pracitce"?? You must be joking, comrade.

I thought the Industrial Revolution was pretty great too! All that economic growth and industrialization and shit...

FSL

17th May 2010, 14:37

So are there any legitimate criticisms of the KKE (besides the obvious fact that they're Stalinists) supported by evidence? I'd like to know this.

I thought the Industrial Revolution was pretty great too! All that economic growth and industrialization and shit...

In terms of bringing huge advances to the human race, it was. If only it was accompanied with an improvement in medical care services, better education available to everyone, a shortening of the work day...

Oh wait, that is what happened in the USSR!

Delenda Carthago

17th May 2010, 14:45

In terms of bringing huge advances to the human race, it was. If only it was accompanied with an improvement in medical care services, better education available to everyone, a shortening of the work day...

Oh wait, that is what happened in the USSR!

so, "revolution" will be a better management of the current world?

FSL

17th May 2010, 15:51

so, "revolution" will be a better management of the current world?

Unless it invents a time machine or inter-dimensional travel, yes?

Honggweilo

17th May 2010, 15:56

Unless it invents a time machine or inter-dimensional travel, yes?

socialism on one planet is a stalinist concept! inter-dimensional/inter-galactic permanent revolution! :lol:

bie

17th May 2010, 15:58

so, "revolution" will be a better management of the current world?
Revolution is an essential transformation that frees productive forces from the hindrance of the old relations of production, allowing their progress. It is the objective law of the development of the society, independent of one's will - not a voluntaristic concept. That's why it is inevitable.

Wanted Man

17th May 2010, 15:59

so, "revolution" will be a better management of the current world?

Well, surely it will not be mismanagement of a long, long time ago in a galaxy faraway.

Honggweilo

17th May 2010, 17:19

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSjwwf91rEg

vyborg

18th May 2010, 08:25

quite impressive..the KKE does have a strong and disciplined organization...it is a pity not to have all this great comrades working under the direction of a nationalist petty bouregois leadership...but this can change

Wakizashi the Bolshevik

18th May 2010, 10:39

The KKE is one of the purest and best Communist parties in Europe, and perhaps even in the world. They have stayed true to the ideals of Marxism-Leninism when many CP's around the world slipped towards revisionism.

Chambered Word

18th May 2010, 12:12

Unless it invents a time machine or inter-dimensional travel, yes?

Trust you to dance around the point. :rolleyes:

Delenda Carthago

18th May 2010, 12:25

Unless it invents a time machine or inter-dimensional travel, yes?

weird,I thought that the whole point was to CHANGE the world...

FSL

18th May 2010, 13:31

Trust you to dance around the point. :rolleyes:

There was no point, just an attempt to sound more-revolutionary-than-thou.

weird,I thought that the whole point was to CHANGE the world...

And in this changed world there will be no need of factories? Because if that's the case, I doubt we have the same aims.

Ravachol

18th May 2010, 14:05

Revolution is an essential transformation that frees productive forces from the hindrance of the old relations of production, allowing their progress. It is the objective law of the development of the society, independent of one's will - not a voluntaristic concept. That's why it is inevitable.

Regardless of the "LOL STALINIST" and "LOL ANARKKKYKIDS" tendency wars going on in this thread I have to disagree with that statement. It is a highly deterministic view of history that not rooted in reality and can lead to serious strategic errors. Seeing revolution as an inevitability leads to circular reasoning, ignoring the necessity of class conciousness and rules out the entire role of revolutionary strategy at all. If history is as deterministic as you claim, with revolution being an inevitability, that means that neither our nor anybody else's actions can change this and, by definition, whatever we do is fine.

And in this changed world there will be no need for factories? Because if that's the case, I doubt we have the same aims.

That's not what he's saying. We have to consider the fact that the factory and it's structure as it is today are developed under the logic of Capital and hence operate according to that logic. This goes for the entirety of institutions. An assault on Capital's logic and it's reproduction begins with assaulting the structures that reproduce this logic, we have to re-organise the entirety of society, not just who manages what.

FSL

18th May 2010, 14:17

That's not what he's saying. We have to consider the fact that the factory and it's structure as it is today are developed under the logic of Capital and hence operate according to that logic. This goes for the entirety of institutions. An assault on Capital's logic and it's reproduction begins with assaulting the structures that reproduce this logic, we have to re-organise the entirety of society, not just who manages what.

"The period of 1917-1956 was the time of the biggest expansion of socialist relations ever, huge economic, cultural and political success. SU from a semi-colony became a powerful and efficient modern country"

"I thought the Industrial Revolution was pretty great too! All that economic growth and industrialization and shit..."

That's how the argument began. I'm guessing we don't want to assault electrification and growth?

bie

18th May 2010, 14:19

It is a highly deterministic view of history that not rooted in reality and can lead to serious strategic errors. Seeing revolution as an inevitability leads to circular reasoning, ignoring the necessity of class conciousness and rules out the entire role of revolutionary strategy at all. If history is as deterministic as you claim, with revolution being an inevitability, that means that neither our nor anybody else's actions can change this and, by definition, whatever we do is fine.
You are actually right. I didn't mean the deterministic vision. The actual success of the revolution or its failure depends heavily on the subjective factor. As Marx said - otherwise the class struggle will end up in the destruction of both struggling classes. But the point: "what is essentially a social revolution?" remains. It is the transformation that corrects the obsolete relations of production to the actual state of the productive forces. And it is not a deterministic process, but depends on the human subjective activity, balance of class forces etc. It is not a mechanical transformation, but the product of the objective laws of development and the subjective factors of human decissions.

Ravachol

18th May 2010, 14:38

"The period of 1917-1956 was the time of the biggest expansion of socialist relations ever, huge economic, cultural and political success. SU from a semi-colony became a powerful and efficient modern country"

"I thought the Industrial Revolution was pretty great too! All that economic growth and industrialization and shit..."

That's how the argument began. I'm guessing we don't want to assault electrification and growth?

As a technophile I'm hardly gonna assault 'electrification and growth' but that was not the point I'm making. What I was saying was that we have to consider the STRUCTURE and FUNCTION of factories as they are today (amongst other institutions) as well as who manages them. No sane person is opposed to production places, but the way they function and how they function is something we have to consider. The factory as it is structured now is a product of a certain logic, a result of the dominant discours, that of Capital. As I said, we'll have to re-structure society as a whole and not just transfer management of the husk. The structures that are established now are not neutral in themselves.