“The Work of the Party in the Working Class and theTrade Union Movement„

[Delenda Carthago]

The Nationwide Conference took place on March 6-7 2010 in accordance with the decisions of the 18th Congress, with its main aim to define the necessity, the content, the direction, and the prerequisites needed for the regroupingof the working class trade union movement. To specifythe corresponding duties and adjustments needed in party leading bodies towards the base organisations and Party Groups involved in mass action, in combination with the necessary organisational measures concerning the organisation and concentration of forces along main lines, with the basic aim being the strengthening of the influence and power of the Party and the class-oriented movement in all the basic sectors of production and services, with the focus being the workplace.


A. REGROUPING OF THE WORKERS’ TRADE UNION MOVEMENT AND THE BASIC DUTIES OF THE PARTY (http://inter.kke.gr/Documents/2010-09-29-party-conference/2010-09-29-workingA)
B. CONTEMPORARY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE STRUCTURE OF THE GREEK ECONOMY AND THE NECESSITY FOR RAPID ADAPTATIONS IN THE STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION OF THE TRADE UNION MOVEMENT (http://inter.kke.gr/Documents/2010-09-29-party-conference/2010-09-29-workingB)
C. PLAN OF ACTION (http://inter.kke.gr/Documents/2010-09-29-party-conference/2010-09-29-workingC)
D. ISSUES OF PARTY BUILDING (http://inter.kke.gr/Documents/2010-09-29-party-conference/2010-09-29-workingD)
E. THE INTERNATIONAL AND EUROPEAN WORKERS’ TRADE UNION MOVEMENT (http://inter.kke.gr/Documents/2010-09-29-party-conference/2010-09-29-workingE)
================
A FRAMEWORK FOR JOINT ACTION FOR THE SOCIAL ALLIANCE OF THE WORKING CLASS WITH POOR FARMERS AND THE SELF-EMPLOYED (http://inter.kke.gr/News/2010news/2010-09-29-working-plaisio)

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Are the KKE doing any good revolutionary work or are they still being sectarian?

[Delenda Carthago]

Are the KKE doing any good revolutionary work or are they still being sectarian?
If by "doing any good revolutionary work" you mean "ally with SYRIZA in order to find a way to manage the capitalist crisis in a non revolutionary way", thanks but we ll stay "sectarian". Our stance on non participation in a capitalist government still stands.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Well has your party began preparing for a revolution? I don't mean a couple general strikes, general strikes have proven themselves useless at this point. I mean, you know, has your party began accumulating arms and started creating worker's militias?

I don't believe in participating in elections, but at this point, if your party does not advocate armed revolution then how exactly does your party intend to get into power

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Well has your party began preparing for a revolution? I don't mean a couple general strikes, general strikes have proven themselves useless at this point. I mean, you know, has your party began accumulating arms and started creating worker's militias?

I don't believe in participating in elections, but at this point, if your party does not advocate armed revolution then how exactly does your party intend to get into power

No love lost for the KKE, but, uh, I'm pretty sure it's a bad tactic of armed struggle to brag about it.

[Delenda Carthago]

Well has your party began preparing for a revolution? I don't mean a couple general strikes, general strikes have proven themselves useless at this point. I mean, you know, has your party began accumulating arms and started creating worker's militias?

I don't believe in participating in elections, but at this point, if your party does not advocate armed revolution then how exactly does your party intend to get into power
Yes. Right now I am waiting for some Javellins that I ordered on ebay to come. We have to get ready!

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Alright then, seriously, how does your party intend to get in power? Participation in government? Nope. So then what is your plan?

[Q]

Alright then, seriously, how does your party intend to get in power? Participation in government? Nope. So then what is your plan?

Good question indeed. The KKE, as I see it, is without any weapons on the front of actual longterm strategy. It's sectarian position is hardly helping matters.

[Delenda Carthago]

In case yall missed it, the title was “The Work of the Party in the Working Class and theTrade Union Movement„.

[Ravachol]

So, why again is this not going to end up like a disaster like every identical attempt before? How is this any different from the yadayada of 'what is to be done?' and why is it going to succeed this time?

I'm not trying to stir things up and I think this thread should refrain from stupid flaming and trolling but I'm genuinely interested what it is that makes people who buy into this tick.

[l'Enfermé]

^What exactly do you mean?

[Ravachol]

^What exactly do you mean?

Exactly what I say. Given the historical experience of this particular strategical course (disregarding discussion as to whether it amounts to a strategy towards communism, which I don't think is the case, but that aside), from which the proposal in this text doesn't differ, how is any of this going to matter this time around?

[red flag over teeside]

Trade unions are not and have never been revolutionary organisations. The objective of all trade unions is to negotiate with employers while attempting to persuade governments to introduce lefislation that will benefit workers. In a non recessionary period this was one strategy which benefitted certain groups of workers sometimes at the expense of less well organised workers. Now in theworst crisis since the 1930's the futility of relying on unions are being shown clearly. The appeal to the unions misses the point that many workers do not belong to unions and those that are are generally passive.

Instead of looking to the unions Marxists need to build networks of politically conscious workers who will be able to convince workers of the need for socialism/communism as an alternative to capitalism.

[Let's Get Free]

I don't believe in participating in elections, but at this point, if your party does not advocate armed revolution then how exactly does your party intend to get into power

Picking up guns and taking to the streets is the last thing a revolutionary organization does, not the first.

[Ravachol]

Picking up guns and taking to the streets is the last thing a revolutionary organization does, not the first.

Is that so? Plenty of 'revolutionary' (read: capital's left-wing) organisations started out from a position of bargaining weakness and engaged in a period of armed struggle. Only when they exerted enough pressure they turned to parliamentarianism. Just take a look at the history of most armed maoist movements or the various national liberation movements, they all follow the path of armed struggle -> negotiations -> compromise and integration.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Picking up guns and taking to the streets is the last thing a revolutionary organization does, not the first.

I get where you are coming from, but what else is there left to do? Go on general strike again? The Greek people have had too much of that, what they need is a revolution

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Is that so? Plenty of 'revolutionary' (read: capital's left-wing) organisations started out from a position of bargaining weakness and engaged in a period of armed struggle. Only when they exerted enough pressure they turned to parliamentarianism. Just take a look at the history of most armed maoist movements or the various national liberation movements, they all follow the path of armed struggle -> negotiations -> compromise and integration.

I think you're leaving out a whole lot of base building, educational, and other "mass" work that precedes armed struggle. There are exceptions - groups that turn to armed struggle as a tactic of desperation in the face of repression (Weather, the RAF, etc.), but I think it's generally recognized that embarking on a course of armed struggle without a relationship to popular movements tends to be suicidal (differentiating, I guess, between "armed struggle" in a broad sense, and planting a few exploding gas canisters here and there, which is obviously possible, and sometimes probably useful).

[Delenda Carthago]

So, why again is this not going to end up like a disaster like every identical attempt before? How is this any different from the yadayada of 'what is to be done?' and why is it going to succeed this time?

I'm not trying to stir things up and I think this thread should refrain from stupid flaming and trolling but I'm genuinely interested what it is that makes people who buy into this tick.
So what do you suggest?

[Ravachol]

I think you're leaving out a whole lot of base building, educational, and other "mass" work that precedes armed struggle. There are exceptions - groups that turn to armed struggle as a tactic of desperation in the face of repression (Weather, the RAF, etc.), but I think it's generally recognized that embarking on a course of armed struggle without a relationship to popular movements tends to be suicidal (differentiating, I guess, between "armed struggle" in a broad sense, and planting a few exploding gas canisters here and there, which is obviously possible, and sometimes probably useful).

Yeah I guess you're right in a lot of instances, but I don't think its as simple as 'mass base building -> armed insurgency' either. For example, the Official IRA had very little mass base left after the border campaign (and almost no associated 'mass organisations' or fronts in the traditional Leninist sense) and it was the Provisional IRA (that split from the officials) who grew in the wake of such incidents as the battle of the bogside and other episodes in the irish civil rights movements. It was this mass base that revitalized (part of) the armed struggle wing of the republican movement instead of a conscious effort to build mass organisations (a strategy pursued by the Officials at the point of the split and the very reason why they didn't want to intervene militarily in the battle of the bogside).

I think the view taken by many proponents of a whole variety of armed-strugglisms (most notably the various permutations of protracted peoples war) is very idealist and ahistorical and takes 'the party'/'the armed group' as the subject working upon 'the masses' to build 'the movement'.

[Ravachol]

So what do you suggest?

Should I read this as "I don't really buy into these proposals but 'its the least worst'"? I mean, I have a lot to suggest (not that any of that matters in the grand scale of things) but I doubt most of that would be of interest to you. The thing is, this thread was about a strategy proposal by the KKE. And I am genuinely interested why it is that some people apparently believe 'this time around things will be different'.

[Delenda Carthago]

Should I read this as "I don't really buy into these proposals but 'its the least worst'"? I mean, I have a lot to suggest (not that any of that matters in the grand scale of things) but I doubt most of that would be of interest to you. The thing is, this thread was about a strategy proposal by the KKE. And I am genuinely interested why it is that some people apparently believe 'this time around things will be different'.
I didnt asked your opinion on what I think, I asked your proposal on the strategy of the working class on its struggle to get the power.

[l'Enfermé]

"Capital's left-wing" :laugh:

[Ravachol]

I didnt asked your opinion on what I think, I asked your proposal on the strategy of the working class on its struggle to get the power.

I have no suggestions for that. You're simply trying to get away from answering my question though. I made a simple inquiry "why is it going to be different this time around?" to which your only response is "so what do you propose?". If you're trying to use this thread to convince people of the correct course taken by the KKE, at least elaborate on how this is the case.

[black magick hustla]

"Capital's left-wing" :laugh:

what's your problem with that term? much more useful than the dozens of neologisms your master dnz created

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

what's your problem with that term? much more useful than the dozens of neologisms your master dnz created

Because for the most part, it's sectarian horse shit

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

So what do you suggest?



1.Participating in a electoral alliance with Syriza and driving it it to the left by exerting pressure from the working class. It's mostly composed of communist factions anyway so it's not like you're dealing with social democrats.

2.Get out your guns and start shooting

You can talk about anti-revisionism all you want, but if you don't take the second option then the working class won't give a shit. They don't care about who you think is the "left wing of capital". They want food, and your party ought to make a revolution so they can provide them with it. It's not that hard, I mean, Syriza are communists (really shitty ones though), you are communists, now shut the fuck up and get busy!


General strikes have not over thrown the Greek government, if they could have over thrown the government then they already would have. At this point the only thing left to do is to seize the

[AmericanMarxist]

Well of course armed revolution is suicidal! Until, that is, the random moment where it works out. Look at Cuba, Castro lost all but 12 guerrillas but managed to come to power. Urban existence and fighting in the streets is certainly suicidal, however a move to some inaccessible area, such as mountainous regions where support can be built and the movement can gain steam. You cannot simply run out into the streets with a gun screaming for revolution. It is a process.

[Ravachol]

1.Participating in a electoral alliance with Syriza and driving it it to the left by exerting pressure from the working class. It's mostly composed of communist factions anyway so it's not like you're dealing with social democrats.


Are you serious man? I despise the KKE and I don't think they're communists by any stretch, but fuck me SYRIZA is probably an even bigger load of horsecrap. SYRIZA is socialdemocrat to the core, just putting a nice red banner here or there and calling yourself 'communist' or 'marxist' doesn't make it so.



2.Get out your guns and start shooting


So from SYRIZA you jump to 'git out yerrr guns boys'? First of all, communism isn't a military exercise, its the total destruction of all existing social relations and the recomposition of the human community. It will involve armed operations at various points throughout its unfolding but it cannot be built on the back of rifles. Besides, such violence can only originate from within the expression of communism as a real movement, of which no party proper in Greece is an expression at this point. For the KKE (or whatever group for that matter) to engage in guerrilla war as a primary strategy (that is not to say that the alternative is the pacifist legal route) is suicide. Besides, the KKE neither has the means nor the militants to do such a thing.



You can talk about anti-revisionism all you want, but if you don't take the second option then the working class won't give a shit. They don't care about who you think is the "left wing of capital". They want food, and your party ought to make a revolution so they can provide them with it. It's not that hard, I mean, Syriza are communists (really shitty ones though), you are communists, now shut the fuck up and get busy!


This is what I hate about 'politics'. The game of shitty identity larping, "I belong to faction X", "I belong to faction Y" blabla. 'The revolution' (which is a process, not a singular event btw) is not the direct product of the effort of militants and their respective groups.

[Delenda Carthago]

2.Get out your guns and start shooting

I suppose you gonna help us in that one, as a good internationalist revolutionary, right? Its not that you just sit there and let us create civil war porn, after the riot porn this country has offered you...

[l'Enfermé]

what's your problem with that term? much more useful than the dozens of neologisms your master dnz created
Your ridiculous jabs at DNZ, like this one, are as stupid as when I heard children in primary school shout them at other children - though perhaps they were far less stupid when little children exclaim them, and not grown men that should know better. "Your master", "nerd brigade", "are you his lawyer?", "read a book!", etc, etc - I haven't heard stuff like that in well over a decade. I feel embarrassed just reading such things.

Though if you want to know exactly why I'm so amused by this notion of "left-wing of capital" or "capital's left-wing", I'll gladly oblige you. This left-wing of capital silliness is very reminiscent of Stalinist discourse in the 1930s. You see, many of the Trotskyist-Zinovievist-Terrorist Left-Oppositionists, subjectively, might have been loyal to the socialist cause. But "objectively"(how much our friends the Stalinist loved this word!), they were nothing but counter-revolutionaries. Thus, when the Stalinist majority approves some CC resolution, the CC resolution is approved unanimously, because the minority that was against it, by their disagreement with the Stalinist majority, have automatically excluded themselves from "the Party". Thus, the left "Trotskyist" deviation is not a left-deviation but a concealed rightist one. Applying this logic to history, Stalinists in the 1930s finally realize something and things "become clear": in 1917, Trotsky was "objectively" against the revolution since the start.

Similarly, "left-wing of capital" implies that yeah, sure, "subjectively", all the non-ultralefts might think that they are for communism and proletarian emancipation, but we ultra-lefts are more clever than this, we can see through the mist, in our hands, the truth "becomes clear": "objectively", all the non-ultralefts are actually advancing the interests of capital, albeit from a position that is a tad bit to the left of liberals, social-democrats, and other such creatures.

This is why I find the concept of "left-wing of capital" so amusing. But I'm not surprised that our comrades the ultra-lefts are so convinced of their own superiority and genius in discovering the absolute truth, that they are the only communists and everyone else is a representative of capital. My father always used to warn me that little is more difficult than convincing a fool that he is a fool.

[Ravachol]

This is why I find the concept of "left-wing of capital" so amusing. But I'm not surprised that our comrades the ultra-lefts are so convinced of their own superiority and genius in discovering the absolute truth, that they are the only communists and everyone else is a representative of capital.

Such truth is hardly something to be divined by the 'ultra-lefts', history does quite a good job at it. And so does contemporary reality if you're not drunk on ideology and sect politics that is.

[l'Enfermé]

Are you his lawyer?

[l'Enfermé]

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

I don't think it's worth seriously answering a post that insinuates that persons like Marx and Engels were merely representatives of capital. It's beyond anyone's dignity. Sometimes I try to dispute some very stupid things posted around here, but the things you post are just beyond stupid.

[Ravachol]

Are you his lawyer?

Yes and as his lawyer I advise him to take a hit out of the little brown bottle in my shaving kit. He won't need much, just a tiny taste.



I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

I don't think it's worth seriously answering a post that insinuates that persons like Marx and Engels were merely representatives of capital. It's beyond anyone's dignity. Sometimes I try to dispute some very stupid things posted around here, but the things you post are just beyond stupid.

Who insinuated that? Don't put words in other people's mouth.

[l'Enfermé]

By your logic, everyone who isn't an ultraleft like you, is a representative of capital. Non-ultraleft communists are a bit better, they are only representatives of the "left-wing of capital", but still representatives of capital. Since Marx and Engels were not ultralefts, thus they were representatives of capital, according your logic.

I said that ultralefts are the only true communists and everyone else represents one or another faction of capital. You agreed and said that history has proven this. I'm not putting any words in your mouth, comrade.

[Ostrinski]

Because for the most part, it's sectarian horse shitTheir response would probably be that it's not sectarian if they're on different teams so to speak, which is their view i.e. Leninists and them are part of separate movements.

[Ravachol]

By your logic, everyone who isn't an ultraleft like you, is a representative of capital.


Not at all. Regular proletarians are not representatives of capital outside of them composing a category of capital, as variable capital.

Capital's left-wing denotes those discourses, parties and groupuscules that use the rethoric of either the labour movement and socialism or pay lip services to communism yet make no structural break with Capital's logic. This has nothing to do with being 'ultra-left' or not (I don't know what you think that refers to by the way) or currents I disagree with. I disagree with platformism or anarcho-syndicalism or 'orthodox' left-communism (ie. ICC/ICT/ICP style stuff) but they're not part of capital's left-wing.



Non-ultraleft communists are a bit better, they are only representatives of the "left-wing of capital", but still representatives of capital. Since Marx and Engels were not ultralefts, thus they were representatives of capital, according your logic.


Again, don't put words in my mouth. The very term 'ultraleft' makes no sense in the context of Marx and Engels, it is either a smear-term used by Leninists against those who don't wanna ride the wave of radically populist social democracy, ie. the historical communist left, or it is used to refer to a very specific current within Marxism that developed in France out of the historical communist left, Italian autonomism and post-situationist thought. 'Claiming Marx' is a stupid past time for the talmudic monks of the left who wave battered placards with bearded faces and banners full of dust.



I said that ultralefts are the only true communists and everyone else represents one or another faction of capital. You agreed and said that history has proven this. I'm not putting any words in your mouth, comrade.

Hardly, if you read what I wrote you could see that I said the ultraleft is hardly required for an understanding of what composes the left-wing of Capital. History shows which forces have historically acted as such and performed this function. It doesn't take a possession of a privileged truth to see how socialdemocracy fulfilled this function during the German revolution, how the PCI fulfilled this function in the wake of the hot autumn, how the PCF fulfilled this function during May '68, how the CNT members who chose to participate in the popular front government fulfilled this function during the Spanish Revolution and the Barcelona may days of '37, etc.

Capital's left-wing does not denote a particular political space, ie. 'non-ultralefts' or whatever. It denotes a discursive space that follows the logic of Capital but paints it red.



For the orthodoxy — “Marxist political economy” — the fact that bourgeois critics saw Marx as essentially a follower of Ricardo was not contested. Rather, he was defended on exactly this basis as having correctly tidied up Ricardo’s recognition of labour as the content of value, and of labour-time as its magnitude — adding only a more or less left-Ricardian theory of exploitation. On this view labour is something that exists quasi-naturalistically in the product, and exploitation is seen as an issue of the distribution of that product — thus the “solution” to capitalism is seen as workers, via the state or other means, shifting that distribution in their favour. If exploitation is a matter of the deduction of a portion of the social product by a parasitic ruling class then socialism does not have to substantially alter the form of commodity production; but may simply take it over, eliminate the parasitic class, and distribute the product equitably.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think you're leaving out a whole lot of base building, educational, and other "mass" work that precedes armed struggle. There are exceptions - groups that turn to armed struggle as a tactic of desperation in the face of repression (Weather, the RAF, etc.), but I think it's generally recognized that embarking on a course of armed struggle without a relationship to popular movements tends to be suicidal (differentiating, I guess, between "armed struggle" in a broad sense, and planting a few exploding gas canisters here and there, which is obviously possible, and sometimes probably useful).

Most armed struggle and national liberation groups had very, very low numbers of members when they initially formed. In the book "Violent Politics" by William Polk he lists the original memberships of some such groups like the Viet Cong, Irgun, Filipino guerrilla orgs etc and I was actually suprised at what little they started with. Usually the authorities initially try to squash a fly with a bazooka and then the ranks of the rebellion grow a bit.

[Os Cangaceiros]

But there definitely has to be some sort of issue that's fermented in the public mind for a while, whether that's land reform, the perceived denial of civil rights based on nationality or religion, the illegitimate occupation of a foreign power, etc. Has to be some sort of issue like that before a movement can be cleaved between those who wish to solve the matter peacefully, and those who support the armed struggle as a potential solution.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Their response would probably be that it's not sectarian if they're on different teams so to speak, which is their view i.e. Leninists and them are part of separate movements.

Well by their logic, there is only about twenty communists in the entire world

[Ravachol]

Well by their logic, there is only about twenty communists in the entire world

So what do you propose? A big lefty get together where all differences are swept under the rug of civility and unity? What's that supposed to achieve exactly? Why not include social-democracy as well while we're at it?

[commieathighnoon]

Are you his lawyer?

Coming from a man whose political guru is a basement-case weirdo with purely internet followers who works as a corporate accountant, this is hilarious.

[hetz]

Coming from a man whose political guru is a basement-case weirdo with purely internet followers who works as a corporate accountant, this is hilarious.
How do you know this?
Are you a suckpuppet or something?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

So what do you propose? A big lefty get together where all differences are swept under the rug of civility and unity? What's that supposed to achieve exactly? Why not include social-democracy as well while we're at it?

Well then perhaps we should make a checklist

1. Do you want to nationalize the means of production
2. Do you want Communism
3. Do you reject reformism
4. Do you believe in revolution?

If you answer yes to all of the following, then you're a good man to me.

[Ravachol]

Well then perhaps we should make a checklist

1. Do you want to nationalize the means of production
2. Do you want Communism
3. Do you reject reformism
4. Do you believe in revolution?

If you answer yes to all of the following, then you're a good man to me.

That's great 'cause 1 contradicts 2 as well as the conception of what 'revolution' or 'communism' is being the very 'cause of the debate...

[Jimmie Higgins]

4. Do you believe in revolution?
Do the KKE?

What's been missing from this discussion of tactics and strategy is any talk of the role of the working class itself. General Strikes, militias, there are all secondary and conditional to the relationship to the class. If large numbers of workers support the KKE and build a "people's alliance" it is not the same IMO as workers recognizing their own power and organizing to exhert their own independant desire and power.

It seems like the people's alliance idea is mearly a coalition around some pro-working class demands, not an effort to help workers organize their own power which then can pull in other oppressed groups behind it.



The interest of the working class, the self-employed, and the small and medium farmers requires a radically different path of development free from the yoke of the monopolies and generally from the driving force of the capitalist profit.

Only this path can ensure nowadays that the workers, the poor farmers and the self-employed have full and stable job and a future without uncertainty and concern for their survival.

Only people’s power can meet people’s needs related to nutrition, housing, integrated education, health protection; to ensure the leisure and creative entertainment.

Only this path can lead to the even and all sided development of regions and sectors, to the development of domestic production and of the necessary infrastructure for people’s welfare.


Only this path can ensure domestic agricultural production that will satisfy the nutritional needs of the people and the development of related sectors of the domestic manufacturing industry.


Only this path can transform water, telecommunications, energy and transport into social benefits establishing the social state ownership in strategic sectors of the economy.


Only this way can extend and ensure people’s liberties and workers’ rights.

There is no other alternative. The producers of the wealth through their revolutionary activity must turn the concentrated means of production into popular ownership that will serve the planned production for people’s welfare.

The working class bears the responsibility for the construction of
people’s alliance.

It will be shaped through the strengthening of the political struggle for a different path of development, for people’s power.

It will be forged by the promotion of a radical framework of common goals of struggle in an anti-imperialist - antimonopoly direction in all sectors of the economy.
It will emerge through the coordinated struggles of the All Workers’ Militant Front (PAME), the All Farmers’ Militant Rally (PASY), the Nationwide Antimonopoly Rally of the Self-employed and the small Tradesmen (PASEVE) on the basis of the acute social problems, in a line of rupture with the monopolies and their power.

The effort to build the people’s alliance requires to take into consideration the inner differences and contradictions in order to establish an anti-imperialist, antimonopoly orientation. The building of the social alliance can not lose sight of the stratification of the social allies, of the contradictions as regards their immediate interests. Instead, it is strengthened and reinforced through the awareness and assertion of their long term interests, recognising the leading role of the working class in order to eliminate social inequalities.

This promising prospect requires the strengthening of the struggle with common demands and goals for the satisfaction of people’s modern needs; it requires struggles that reinforce the people’s alliance, coordinate the struggle, increase their will to counterattack and inspire militant optimism

So I'm curious about the KKE's conception of this. Do they have a sort of stageist view of revolution: first install a government which will advance democratic rights against "monopolies" and the Trokia and then at some point revolution will be possible?

In practical terms, it just seems like their strategy is to build support for their organization and front-groups, rather than organize towards self-emancipation for the class.

[MarxSchmarx]

Coming from a man whose political guru is a basement-case weirdo with purely internet followers who works as a corporate accountant, this is hilarious.

Don't flame. I know you're new, so please check the forum FAQ:

posts containing little but personal insults, name-calling and/or threats are not permitted.

Repeated flaming in posts containing nothing of substance except flames will result in warning points,
If this continues, we will have to issue verbal warnings.

[Delenda Carthago]

It seems like the people's alliance idea is mearly a coalition around some pro-working class demands, not an effort to help workers organize their own power which then can pull in other oppressed groups behind it.



Actually, its excactly what it doesnt seem to you.


So I'm curious about the KKE's conception of this. Do they have a sort of stageist view of revolution: first install a government which will advance democratic rights against "monopolies" and the Trokia and then at some point revolution will be possible?

Given the fact that right now Papariga could be prime minister of the country on a "goverment of the Left" alliance with SYRIZA, and the party's position on denial to participate on any capitalist goverment, it gives you an image.



In practical terms, it just seems like their strategy is to build support for their organization and front-groups, rather than organize towards self-emancipation for the class.


The construction of the party of the working class, IS the self-emancipation of the class.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I have to agree with you on that very last point, Delenda.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Actually, its excactly what it doesnt seem to you.Ok, then how do these demands help workers organize themselves in their workplaces and communities?


It will be shaped through the strengthening of the political struggle for a different path of development, for people’s power.

It will be forged by the promotion of a radical framework of common goals of struggle in an anti-imperialist - antimonopoly direction in all sectors of the economy.
It will emerge through the coordinated struggles of the All Workers’ Militant Front (PAME), the All Farmers’ Militant Rally (PASY), the Nationwide Antimonopoly Rally of the Self-employed and the small Tradesmen (PASEVE) on the basis of the acute social problems, in a line of rupture with the monopolies and their power.

The effort to build the people’s alliance requires to take into consideration the inner differences and contradictions in order to establish an anti-imperialist, antimonopoly orientation. The building of the social alliance can not lose sight of the stratification of the social allies, of the contradictions as regards their immediate interests. Instead, it is strengthened and reinforced through the awareness and assertion of their long term interests, recognising the leading role of the working class in order to eliminate social inequalities.

This promising prospect requires the strengthening of the struggle with common demands and goals for the satisfaction of people’s modern needs; it requires struggles that reinforce the people’s alliance, coordinate the struggle, increase their will to counterattack and inspire militant optimismI guess what I'm asking above is: what does this "different path of development" look like and how do they propose to get there?


Given the fact that right now Papariga could be prime minister of the country on a "goverment of the Left" alliance with SYRIZA, and the party's position on denial to participate on any capitalist goverment, it gives you an image.But do they see the KKE getting elected and then pushing through the democratic democratic demands as a necissary step before socialism?


The construction of the party of the working class, IS the self-emancipation of the class.But what about workers not in the party? Are they just supporters? What is the relationship of the specific party to the broader class?

[Delenda Carthago]

I guess what I'm asking above is: what does this "different path of development" look like and how do they propose to get there?




Thats a fucked up translation. Its meant to be "a different path of growth", the growth that serves the needs of the people, not the profits of the corporations, ie socialism.



But do they see the KKE getting elected and then pushing through the democratic democratic demands as a necissary step before socialism?
Not really. I just told you that we are not gonna participate in a capitalist government, and a government before a revolution is just that.


But what about workers not in the party? Are they just supporters? What is the relationship of the specific party to the broader class?No, of course not. The construction of socialism is a task for the class itself, through its economical tools(syndicates, soviets etc), not the party's. The party is just the political vanguard of the procedure, but in no case it replaces the role of the class. In a few months when the program will be approved by the congress, and translated, I ll post it, it has a more specific analyse on the party-class relationship on the construction of socialism.

Until then I propose the fifth chapter on this speech (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1926/01/25.htm).



Nice questions btw. :)