"Communist" president in Cyprus [Archive]

вор в законе

24th February 2008, 19:03

Cyprus gets ready for a communist 'takeover'

Fears of a Soviet-educated communist emerging as the next leader of Cyprus - and the first in the EU - has eclipsed the closest election in the island's post-colonial history as voters cast their ballots today.
The prospect of Demetris Christofias, the silver-haired chief of the Marxist-Leninist Akel, becoming Cyprus's sixth President last week turned what had been a campaign dominated by the struggle to reunify the war-torn island into a bitter fight between communism and Christendom.
With conservatives lined up behind Christofias's opponent, the former Foreign Minister, Ioannis Kasoulides, text messages and emails carrying the stark warning that the island was about to be consumed by the Red Army were flying. The rotund 61-year-old, they said, secretly aimed to transform Cyprus into another Cuba.

Christofias rejected the charges, angrily sidestepping the suggestion that he was even a communist at all. Asked whether Castro was a hero, he dismissed the question as 'highly provocative' and lashed out at the scaremongering. 'What is this, that I'm a Mediterranean Fidel Castro? I'm not. I'm the leader of a party that is peculiar, that's what it is. It's a party that cares for social justice, and the people of Cyprus know that.'
This is the first time that Akel, which was founded in 1927 and is Cyprus's oldest party, has fielded a candidate in presidential elections. Previously it had supported candidates for the top post, including the nationalist President Tassos Papadopoulos, who was unexpectedly ousted in the first round a week ago. Last year, however, Akel managed to clinch the mayoralty of Nicosia through Eleni Mavrou, the first woman to hold the post. And while Kasoulides, 59, last week won the support of the powerful Orthodox Church, the communist is believed to have a slight edge following the decision of Papadopoulos's Diko party to back him. 'On Monday, I believe I will be President,' said Christofias, the son of a construction worker who was 'blessed with a party scholarship' to the Soviet Union, where he became a PhD in history at Moscow's Academy of Social Sciences.

Declared illegal by the British colonial authorities, the Communist party saw its property confiscated and its members imprisoned soon after its establishment. It was reinvented as Akel in 1946, proclaiming itself a communist party that adhered to the principles of Marx, Engels and Lenin.
Supporters today range from cocktail-sipping salon socialists to headscarved old women in the island's mountain villages. Members don't flinch from educating their children privately, wearing Armani or driving a BMW. Perhaps because of this, the party faithful have been stunned at their portrayal as 'Stalinist monsters'.
'
Sensible people are calling me asking whether, as atheist communists, we'll close down churches, abolish religious education classes and even stop Greek language and culture being taught in schools,' said Pola Kyprianides, a chartered accountant and long-time Akel member. 'It's unbelievable.'
But Akel also has supporters in high places. George Vassiliou, Cyprus's moderate former President, said the belief that Christofias was either unreconstructed or Eurosceptic was wrong. 'You can't even use the word communist to describe them,' he said in an interview. 'They are a pragmatic bunch, and neither Europe nor the world has anything really to worry about.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/24/cyprus (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/24/cyprus)

Keyser

24th February 2008, 19:11

Cyprus gets ready for a communist 'takeover'

Fears of a Soviet-educated communist emerging as the next leader of Cyprus - and the first in the EU - has eclipsed the closest election in the island's post-colonial history as voters cast their ballots today.
The prospect of Demetris Christofias, the silver-haired chief of the Marxist-Leninist Akel, becoming Cyprus's sixth President last week turned what had been a campaign dominated by the struggle to reunify the war-torn island into a bitter fight between communism and Christendom.
With conservatives lined up behind Christofias's opponent, the former Foreign Minister, Ioannis Kasoulides, text messages and emails carrying the stark warning that the island was about to be consumed by the Red Army were flying. The rotund 61-year-old, they said, secretly aimed to transform Cyprus into another Cuba.

Christofias rejected the charges, angrily sidestepping the suggestion that he was even a communist at all. Asked whether Castro was a hero, he dismissed the question as 'highly provocative' and lashed out at the scaremongering. 'What is this, that I'm a Mediterranean Fidel Castro? I'm not. I'm the leader of a party that is peculiar, that's what it is. It's a party that cares for social justice, and the people of Cyprus know that.'
This is the first time that Akel, which was founded in 1927 and is Cyprus's oldest party, has fielded a candidate in presidential elections. Previously it had supported candidates for the top post, including the nationalist President Tassos Papadopoulos, who was unexpectedly ousted in the first round a week ago. Last year, however, Akel managed to clinch the mayoralty of Nicosia through Eleni Mavrou, the first woman to hold the post. And while Kasoulides, 59, last week won the support of the powerful Orthodox Church, the communist is believed to have a slight edge following the decision of Papadopoulos's Diko party to back him. 'On Monday, I believe I will be President,' said Christofias, the son of a construction worker who was 'blessed with a party scholarship' to the Soviet Union, where he became a PhD in history at Moscow's Academy of Social Sciences.

Declared illegal by the British colonial authorities, the Communist party saw its property confiscated and its members imprisoned soon after its establishment. It was reinvented as Akel in 1946, proclaiming itself a communist party that adhered to the principles of Marx, Engels and Lenin.
Supporters today range from cocktail-sipping salon socialists to headscarved old women in the island's mountain villages. Members don't flinch from educating their children privately, wearing Armani or driving a BMW. Perhaps because of this, the party faithful have been stunned at their portrayal as 'Stalinist monsters'.
'
Sensible people are calling me asking whether, as atheist communists, we'll close down churches, abolish religious education classes and even stop Greek language and culture being taught in schools,' said Pola Kyprianides, a chartered accountant and long-time Akel member. 'It's unbelievable.'
But Akel also has supporters in high places. George Vassiliou, Cyprus's moderate former President, said the belief that Christofias was either unreconstructed or Eurosceptic was wrong. 'You can't even use the word communist to describe them,' he said in an interview. 'They are a pragmatic bunch, and neither Europe nor the world has anything really to worry about.'

I think that proves the point I made in my last post.

Don't expect anything from AKEL.

24th February 2008, 19:18

Nothing is a word that it destroys all!Changes in my oppinion(as i am living all this from very close)i think they will come.Ofcourse not in the point of view most of us around here want but the work class it will be helped a lot!

Fuserg9:star:

KurtFF8

24th February 2008, 19:30

Social Democrats are far better than right wing conservatives.

Edit, also it's sad that whenever there is a communist/socialist victory that it is usually dismissed by the left as "oh well they aren't real communists or socialists"

Maybe they won't bring about socialism within their terms but they will certainly be much better and try to come much closer than any of the alternatives, I think they deserve at least some support.

24th February 2008, 19:34

Social Democrats are far better than right wing conservatives.

akel is not social democrates its clearly a marxist-leninist party!

Dros

24th February 2008, 20:13

Is this good? Does anybody know him?? is he REALLY a communist?! if so then YES!! and Cyprus is only a two hour boatride away from here!

I really really doubt that he is a communist.

24th February 2008, 20:17

I really really doubt that he is a communist.

its kind i am playing the laweyr of the devil here and no one pays attention to me :D!I say to you thath he IS a communist!In his last speech minutes ago he told about mixed way of society for now,and until cyprus problem comes to an end!

Fuserg9:star:

Red October

24th February 2008, 20:29

This guy is about as communist as the CPUSA. European capitalists have nothing to worry about with him in power.

24th February 2008, 20:48

ofcourse european capitalists have nothing to afraid from tiny cyprus.Who pays attention to her.BUT even if communism comes to cyprus it will be good for the people here so dont be so opposite.And who knows with some good fights communism will end to anarchy!From tha past fascists president,a chance to a communist president will be a good idea!

Fuserg9:star:

24th February 2008, 21:52

a small fascist group(10-20 max) gathered outside of the party of sinagermos(supports kasoulidi) and shouted slogans for eoka c is coming(eoka b made a war to throw makarios from president in 15 july and after that turkish troops find the opportunity to invade in cyprus,eoka b also killed a large number of communists and leftists down here in the 70s and also had made a lot of troubles to turkish cypriots killed raped etc)the neonazis who want eoka c to come they are getting to madness because a COMMUNIST president is elected!But they cant do anything because this time people is awake and will crash anything they will try to do!

Fuserg9:star:

Dominicana_1965

24th February 2008, 23:13

Reformist would be a bit too much credit for this individual.

Like others have already claimed, don't expect much from this free-market lover. The very same AKEL are capitalists themselves.

jake williams

25th February 2008, 00:20

Social Democrats are far better than right wing conservatives.
Oh noes!

Not Revolutionary Enough.

Wanted Man

25th February 2008, 00:31

This is a very important victory. Congratulations to Christofias.

It also once again shows us that most people on this forum do not understand the nature of three things:

-the capitalist state
-the communist party
-the relation between the two

In Cyprus, the communist party has a lot of mass support. Still, to actually clinch the country's presidency is a remarkable feat. However, this doesn't mean that they are "social-democratic" or "reformist" (or whatever buzzword you want to substitute for "not part of a tendency that I support") just because they happen to be successful (antithetical to all of petty-bourgeois socialism). It especially doesn't mean that Christofias can just use his newfound executive power to turn Cyprus (divided along nationalist lines, EU member, capitalist country, etc.) into a socialist country, isolated in a capitalist EU, from the top-down without the proletariat having to create a revolution.

What did you expect, that this new president would just demand dictatorial power, disband all other parties, close down the churches, withdraw Cyprus from the EU and nationalize everything in a heartbeat? That's just the caricature of communism that the extreme-right of Cyprus is using against the AKEL even now, according to the articles posted in this thread.

I think it's pretty goddamn hilarious that people who (rightly) assert that "socialism in one country" is unworkable, are now railing against this guy for not implementing it in a caricaturally "stalinist" fashion on a small island. AKEL are a massively supported communist party, who have made a great achievement with this. It doesn't mean that they're about to storm the Winter Palace in sunny Nicosia. Duh.

Edit: one more thing. R-r-revolutionary maoists love to chant the mantra "no investigation, no right to speak" (whenever someone disagrees with them). So crawl back into your holes and do some research before you start to malign the AKEL based on a Guardian article and Christofias' Wikipedia entry.

Edit2: before going to bed, I'll conclude with a quote from the man himself:

"To free our country from foreign troops, we need a vision, a history of struggle and contact with the people."

KurtFF8

25th February 2008, 01:04

Hmm I typed out a response before, I don't know if it was deleted or what but anyway (and if it was deleted, sorry to the moderators)

I don't see why whenever there is a success by a communist or socialist party that the left is quick to claim "oh they aren't really communists/socialists" when it should be clear that the candidate proclaiming to be communist or socialist will enact (or try to enact) policies that are more beneficial to the cause than someone who is a liberal or conservative.

Even if he is a social democrat, social democratic welfare states are much more advantageous to the working class than a more liberal or capitalistically focused economic/political system, so it's at least better than the alternative.

I'm not saying we should settle for it, but we also shouldn't be quick to criticize certain communist/socialist parties when they are becoming successful.

Edit: nevermind my previous post wasn't deleted, I don't know what I was thinking

KurtFF8

25th February 2008, 01:06

Oh noes!

Not Revolutionary Enough.

You were joking right?

jake williams

25th February 2008, 01:19

You were joking right?
Yeah, except I didn't intend it to be "funny". It's just that the tendency around here is to panic whenever someone suggests that people who aren't revolutionary execute-the-capitalists communists can nevertheless do good things, or be better than the more brutal capitalists.

KurtFF8

25th February 2008, 03:08

I know, and I think that type of thought is one of the contributing factors to why the left is so divided.

Red October

25th February 2008, 03:25

It sounds like he's going pretty far out of his way to assure the EU and other leaders that he is not a communist. Has he laid out any plans to remove the bourgeois from power and replace it with workers control, or anything along those lines?

Nothing Human Is Alien

25th February 2008, 08:32

All assumptions aside, comrade trinitario was correct in his early assessment of this party as a capitalist one.

It's origins lie in a genuine communist party, but it has long since been transformed.

It has already been a part of the bourgeois government for years, with several ministers in key positions. They have formed blocs with all sorts of bourgeois parties over the years, preferring to work 'in the background' as a 'strategic move' instead of fighting for revolution.

The capitalist mouthpiece Financial Times points out: "Mr Evagorou keeps in close touch with the private sector. Part of his job ahead of the election will be to persuade the island’s business elite, traditionally Democratic Rally supporters, that a communist administration would not take measures that could damage Cyprus’s prospects of attracting investment." [emphasis added]

In other words, capitalism imperialist domination will proceed unabaited.

FT also points out that Christofias "hopes to attract support from rightwing voters keen to see the Cyprus issue finally resolved."

Evagorou (a leading party member) says "We have not abandoned Marxism-Leninism as a philosophy, but we’re not dogmatic. We’re selective about the elements that we put into practice." Translation: we're going to try to give a 'human face' to the capitalist system of exploitation of man by man.

But, don't take my word for it. Capitalist mouthpiece Financial Mirror assures "Christofias would like to renew and modernize further the economic model Cyprus has been using so far , and to add a more social approach."

They go on to reassure capitalists: "But just because he has served all his life for the island’s communist party, AKEL, this doesn’t mean that he intends to transform the country into a communist state once he is elected president in the upcoming polls on Sunday... we need the cooperation of the community of businessmen to help us push forward the economy of Cyprus,” Kyprianou [AKEL spokesmen] said... Demetris Christofias is a moderate, not an extremist. He will never act in a way to damage the political situation or risk the economy of the country,” Kyprianou said. “His priority is not to turn Cyprus into a communist state. The aim is to modernize, maybe even democratize institutions of Cyprus"...

“We are promoting a progressive, but not a communist, political platform, where there will be no change in the economic and political scene in Cyprus.”

So let's be real with ourselves here.

Of course the election does mean something. It shows broad discontent among the workers and farmers and a real desire for a peaceful reunification of the country. But what's needed in a situation like this is for real communists to step forward and rally our class brothers and sisters around the need for revolution - the only force capable of solving their problems.

Edit, also it's sad that whenever there is a communist/socialist victory that it is usually dismissed by the left as "oh well they aren't [I]real communists or socialists"

So you just accept anyone and everyone that calls themselves a communist as being such? Has history taught you nothing? Have you heard of the CPUSA? The CPC? How about Pol Pot? Labels (whether self-applied or originating somewhere else) are often meaningless. We have to look at things as materialists, examine class forces, and dig a little to get to the bottom of things. Lauding everyone that waves a red flag isn't going to get us anywhere (except lost in the dead end bayou of opportunism).

Maybe they won't bring about socialism within their terms but they will certainly be much better and try to come much closer than any of the alternatives, I think they deserve at least some support.

This is classic reformism: pushing for capitalism with a 'human face' because its 'better.'

So, with that as an excuse, comrades like this would have us council the capitalist rulers on how to rule 'better,' so that they don't stir up as much discontent among the workers.

It's probably 'better' to get punched in the face by someone wearing a boxing glove than someone with a bare fist, but I'd prefer not to get punched in the face at all. What about you?

Honggweilo

25th February 2008, 11:52

Nothing Human Is Alien

25th February 2008, 11:56

So you're just going to stick your fingers in your ear and spew non-applicable political slurs, huh?

This reminds me of MAS in Bolivia.. even when the party itself says its going to preserve capitalism, work with business, etc., some people can still be found to praise it for waving the red flag. It's amazing.

25th February 2008, 14:56

dont be so negative!A COMMUNIST president was elected in a country.Thats good and far better from the fascists who were running too!I am coming from a family with roots in AKEL and i know a lot of thinks even that i choosen a different way and i didnt become a member of that party(anarchy way)!We should give our support in a comrade and hope for beter days!

Fuserg9:star:

Bright Banana Beard

25th February 2008, 15:30

Damn you to whoever anti-reformist here.

25th February 2008, 16:38

http://www.revleft.com/vb/cyprus-christofias-t71560/index.html

an article puttened from another comrade!Should answer some more guestions!

KurtFF8

25th February 2008, 17:40

The capitalist mouthpiece Financial Times points out: "Mr Evagorou keeps in close touch with the private sector. Part of his job ahead of the election will be to persuade the island’s business elite, traditionally Democratic Rally supporters, that a communist administration would not take measures that could damage Cyprus’s prospects of attracting investment." [emphasis added]

Even Lenin tried to attract investment to the USSR under his economic policy because the country needed some capital to begin development of the country.

Cyprus isn't isolated and to pretend that it isn't surrounded by capitalist governments won't help it as isolation is not going to help the development of socialism.

So perhaps he is trying a slower transition (but then again only time will tell what he is going to do)

Bandito

25th February 2008, 17:57

Euro-communists really make me sick.
But,let's give him time. I am affraid that he will do nothing.
How can you be a communist and against private property and a EU member?

KurtFF8

25th February 2008, 18:09

Well isn't Cyprus already an EU member?

Like I said earlier, better a communist party heading a government than a liberal or conservative party.

AGITprop

25th February 2008, 18:10

Honggweilo

25th February 2008, 18:22

Euro-communists really make me sick.
But,let's give him time. I am affraid that he will do nothing.
How can you be a communist and against private property and a EU member?

The AKEL didnt incorporated Cyprus in to the EU, it was the former goverment social-democratic goverment. The AKEL are strongly for the unification of the Greek and Turkish cyprotic parts and a strong advesiary of the Lissabon accords and the bologna proces... The fact that you people use the "Financial Times" as a legitimate resource to blame the AKEL of eurocommunism really sickens me.. The reason the AKEL are pragmatic in their PR campaigns is for the fear of demonisation and a wave of anti-communism. Their campaign program isnt the same as their internal program. While progressive goverments in Bolivia and Venezuela are facing the same problems in their transition, imagine how it would be for a small island trapped in the backyard of the EU while being devided by the reactionary govement of Turkey? The AKEL has very strong ties with the KKE and is a strong advisary of NATO/EU imperialism in former Yugoslavia (the military instalations in Kosovo). Also the accusation of "having contacts with major businesses" is not with any multinational corporation or bourgeoisie, just small time comprador and petty-bourgeois in a united front against the right wing social democrats and extreme right. The winning of a presidency isnt anything near taking power, cyprus is still a bourgeois state and AKEL regocnizes that, but it is still a major victory in the internal battle against the EU and their pending ban on communist parties.

Its to early to judge the AKEL on their presidency right now since their are just starting. Also their presidency stil doesnt give them a parlementary majority or any influence on the governing of the turkish-cyprotic side (although they have alot of mass support on both sides of the Island).

I will post the press release from the AKEL when i get hold of it.

KurtFF8

25th February 2008, 18:23

But having control over the state itself can make organizing much easier/more possible for workers.

If you have a state that serves the interested of the ruling class, it's going to use its power to prevent workers from being too successful.

But if you have a true communist at the head of state, the power of the state can be used for the interests of labor.

25th February 2008, 19:03

Hes a stalinist. He wont nationalize the economy, if he does, it will be a failing bureacratic rule. Dont expect anything at all. You cannot attain communism from the top. Elections are useful to propagate ideas but not establish communism. The workers themselves need to develop class consciousness and start taking over factories. This is just a bourgeois idea of communist "take-over", dont even pay attention to this crap. When i start hearing him nationalizing companies and creating democratic control, well then i may be interested.

man sorry to telling it to tou but what you say is absolutely crap!I am HERE i know what happening and i see stupid things said like hi is like stalin:scared:! dont say things that you dont know.all the capitalists and fascists had fallen over christofias to eat him and started make propaganda against him and say that hi is like stalin and i here it and here from COMRADES!Is a communist your enemy?I dont think so ,so be cool in what you are saying!
I feel that noone pays attention on what i am saying and even if i tell something they do as it isnt there and they continue say things that dont exist!

Fuserg9:star:

вор в законе

25th February 2008, 19:35

Although I doubt he will try to make any radical changes, just the fact that a Communist Party is the major party in a country member of the E.U. is good since it legitimizes communist ideology, which is a major issue if you take into account that countries like Hungary have banned the hammer and sickle.

Honggweilo

25th February 2008, 20:09

man sorry to telling it to tou but what you say is absolutely crap!I am HERE i know what happening and i see stupid things said like hi is like stalin:scared:! dont say things that you dont know.all the capitalists and fascists had fallen over christofias to eat him and started make propaganda against him and say that hi is like stalin and i here it and here from COMRADES!Is a communist your enemy?I dont think so ,so be cool in what you are saying!
I feel that noone pays attention on what i am saying and even if i tell something they do as it isnt there and they continue say things that dont exist!

Fuserg9:star:

I am glad that even Cypriotic anarchists are refuting the ridiculous bullshit that is spewed against the AKEL based on financial reviews (the same that suggest Raul is going to turn Cuba in to a free market economy).. respect

The best helmsman try to sail while standing on the shore..

Dominicana_1965

25th February 2008, 20:23

While progressive goverments in Bolivia

I would hardly call the Bolivian state progressive, comrade.

"Andean capitalism" and a Party that until 2004 didn't even support nationalization. (and to a extent, practically still doesn't in a large sense)

Honggweilo

25th February 2008, 20:33

I would hardly call the Bolivian state progressive, comrade.

"Andean capitalism" and a Party that until 2004 didn't even support nationalization. (and to a extent, practically still doesn't in a large sense)

Everyday the MAS ,the progressive forces, and unions are radicalizing steadily, making progres step by step. The Bolivian situation is explosive with the Bourgeois and fascist seperatists in Santa Cruz. Concidering their situation their pace is understandable. In every way the developements in Bolivia are progressive.

Interview with Morales (http://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.solidaire.org%2Fscrip ts%2Farticle.phtml%3Fsection%3DA2AAAGBB%26obid%3D3 5897%26theme%3D2007%26PHPSESSID%3D9538ce00e2f0041a 8537bf18d787ad33&langpair=nl%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8)

So what if they didnt support nationalization until 2004? the fact is they do now and that is something we should endorse 100%.

As Infaam&Abject said; The role of a mass communist/progressive party in capitalist state doesnt seem to be clear to some or either very dogmatic and unmaterialistic. Even to the extend that some indirectly suggest reaction against them.

Dominicana_1965

25th February 2008, 20:53

Everyday the MAS ,the progressive forces, and unions are radicalizing steadily, making progres step by step. The Bolivian situation is explosive with the Bourgeois and fascist seperatists in Santa Cruz. Concidering their situation their pace is understandable. In every way the developements in Bolivia are progressive.

As Infaam&Abject said; The role of a mass communist/progressive party in capitalist state doesnt seem to be clear to some or either very dogmatic and unmaterialistic.

And I suppose that progress includes selling off the country's mineral resources to even more foreign investors?

Or maybe the false adoption of nationalization where capitalists are still heavily in control, no my bad, in control due to reformist policies like "andean capitalism". The "progressive" MAS also supports the Pentagon's military base in Bolivia and has made cuts in social spending among other contradictory actions that will label it as another conservative party.

These "progressive forces" which I assume aren't based on the proletarian masses of Bolivia who were betrayed during the gas war of Bolivia which demanded the full nationalization of gas and oil are mere capitalist pawns. The casual solution for the ruling class when the working-class masses are about to seize power (which even removed the president)?

Bring in a "reformist" or "one of their kind", bingo, Evo.

The role of a mass communist/progressive party in capitalist state doesnt seem to be clear to some or either very dogmatic and unmaterialistic.

The role that this and other "progressive" parties play is actually very clear, the continuation of capitalism through "calming" the masses.

Dominicana_1965

25th February 2008, 21:00

So what if they didnt support nationalization until 2004? the fact is they do now and that is something we should endorse 100%.

Here comrade, I think this quote from a water activist from El Alto would explain this bs "nationalization".

"They talk about nationalization, but in reality it's not nationalization- 80 percent stays in the hands of the corporations... we stay in the same system, the same model."

I wouldn't support a action that would push back the working-class when they were about to seize power.

Honggweilo

25th February 2008, 21:38

Morales goverment might not be the most genuine revolutionairy socialist goverment there is, but it its definitely a progressive one considering the other govements in Latin america.

Here comrade, I think this quote from a water activist from El Alto would explain this bs "nationalization".

I wouldn't support a action that would push back the working-class when they were about to seize power.

And I suppose that progress includes selling off the country's mineral resources to even more foreign investors?

Or maybe the false adoption of nationalization where capitalists are still heavily in control, no my bad, in control due to reformist policies like "andean capitalism". The "progressive" MAS also supports the Pentagon's military base in Bolivia and has made cuts in social spending among other contradictory actions that will label it as another conservative party.
Can you source that please?

Here comrade, I think this quote from a water activist from El Alto would explain this bs "nationalization".

Quote:
"They talk about nationalization, but in reality it's not nationalization- 80 percent stays in the hands of the corporations... we stay in the same system, the same model."
I wouldn't support a action that would push back the working-class when they were about to seize power.This refutes that

http://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.solidaire.org%2Fscrip ts%2Farticle.phtml%3Fsection%3DA2AAABBQBH%26obid%3 D34498&langpair=nl%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8 (http://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.solidaire.org%2Fscrip ts%2Farticle.phtml%3Fsection%3DA2AAABBQBH%26obid%3 D34498&langpair=nl%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8)

Due to new constitutional reforms the water supply is going to be 90% nationalized in march. the other 10% will be given to union councils

The role that this and other "progressive" parties play is actually very clear, the continuation of capitalism through "calming" the masses. No, thats the role of social democracy. The role of a communist party in a capitalist society in a non-revolutionary situation is to try and improve the situation for its working class due to legal parlemental struggle and direct mass work to create an organized and grassrooted workers party while still aiming for a revolutionairy transformation in the long run. There is nothing reformist about having a minimum and a maximum program. Forcing a revolutionary situation upon the masses is close to RAF tactics.

Dominicana_1965

25th February 2008, 22:22

Morales goverment might not be the most genuine revolutionairy socialist goverment there is, but it its definitely a progressive one considering the other govements in Latin america.The Morales regime is not a revolutionary socialist state. The capitalist class has not been overthrown and the the capitalist mode of production is still completely intact and will remain intact without the MAS even trying.

But Morales and running mate Alvaro Garcia Linera are the first to temper both the over-ambitious hopes of the left as well as the exaggerated fears on the right. "We should admit that Bolivia will still be capitalist in the next 50 to 100 years," Linera said in recent interviews.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9353

The appointment of García Linera as vice presidential candidate is largely to thank for the MAS´s recent jump in popularity in polls. He is seen to appease both urban, middle class sentiments (being white, a media star, and a well-spoken academic) and the rural-urban, popular left, given his history of radicalism. Since his nomination, García Linera has been busy distancing himself from his radical roots, however. A former guerrilla who spent time in jail for his political activities, García Linera has also written extensively on Marxist theory and social movements in Bolivia. On the question of socialism (http://www.bolpress.com/analisis.php?Cod=2005003649), however, he has worked hard to convince the electorate that he will never mention this word again (see Miguel Lora Fuentes, "Alvaro García Linera: 'El capitalismo andino es un paso intermedio para imaginar el socialismo'," (http://www.bolpress.com/analisis.php?Cod=2005003649) Bolpress, October 7, 2005).

It should not be a surprise that García Linera winces at the mere mention of socialism, since the MAS never has been a socialist party, despite the name. Its most important social base remains the coca growers in the semi-tropical region of Cochabamba. The most coherent economic policy (http://www.mas.org.bo/pdf/programa3.pdf) that the party has ever had is its anti-imperialist stance to fight US plans for coca eradication in the region. Although necessary to sustain (just barely) the livelihood of growers in the semi-tropical regions in the departments of Cochabamba and La Paz, the policy of growing coca does not amount to a sound policy for national development.http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/spronk071105.html

In a speech, Mr Morales said: "We have won and now we are going to change this country. All the majority together. The people are finally in power."
He said his political party, the Movement towards Socialism (Mas), would never "extort" foreign investors.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4539454.stm

Bolivia's president and first ever indigenous head of state (2006 to present), Juan Evo Morales Ayma, is Exhibit C, and along with Lula, the greatest disappointment. Petras cites his government as "the most striking example of (a) 'center-left' regime" to betray its supporters and embrace neoliberalim once in office. Mass uprisings ousted two earlier presidents who defended foreign investor natural resources ownership, and Bolivians elected Morales to do what they didn't. Instead, he rejected oil and gas expropriation, supports Big Oil interests, and embraced business as usual policies. Under nationalizations Morales-style, current contractual arrangements are effectively intact, and the country's mineral resources have been sold off to the greatest ever number of foreign investors.

In addition, Morales broke his promise to triple the painfully low minimum wage, increased it 10% instead, and maintained previous neoliberal fiscal austerity and economic stability policies. He also tolerates the US Drug Enforcement Agency's intrusive presence and the Pentagon's Chapare military base; appointed hard right economic, defense and other ministers; opposed agrarian reform; supports large landowners; provides them large subsidies and tax incentives; and backs the Confederation of Private Businessmen in Bolivia by promoting foreign investment, social spending cuts, prioritization of exports, and other pro-business policies above the interests of the people who elected him. Petras says Morales "excels in public theater" by combining "political demagogy" to his base while backing neoliberal IMF austerity and business-friendly policies.http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=14054

And the correlating economy policy is the Andean capitalism you proposed or the old national capitalism?

The correlating economic policy behind all this is the progressive dismantling of the colonial economic dependence that condemned us to being a primary material exporting country. That is why the nationalisation of the hydrocarbons is tied together with its industrialisation. Bolivia will continue being a capitalist country, but with a greater bargaining power against the modes of capitalism worldwide. Internally, we are trying to promote communitarian structures; that is why we talk about Andean-Amazonian capitalism. Capitalism predominates, but other modes of production than ones that transfer profits, wealth and technical resources are recognised and reinforced.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2006/676/7669

No, thats the role of social democracy. The role of a communist party in a capitalist society in a non-revolutionary situation is to try and improve the situation for its working class due to legal parlemental struggle and direct mass work to create an organized and grassrooted workers party while still aiming for a revolutionairy transformation in the long run. There is nothing reformist about having a minimum and a maximum program. Forcing a revolutionary situation upon the masses is close to RAF tactics.Ah, now you get it...the MAS isn't a socialist party it is a social democratic party that is merely implementing policies to maintain the current ruling-class.

Cheung Mo

26th February 2008, 00:20

Greece is next, but it will be hard with the social democrats controlling the media and the conservatives controlling the electoral system.

Bandito

26th February 2008, 08:50

Revolution does not come from the top.
Social democracy does.

Nothing Human Is Alien

26th February 2008, 10:26

This thread reeks with the stench of the dead corpse of reformism. It's unfortunate that comrades but on blinders because someone calls themselves a communist, while violating every communist principle. It gets old having to repeat yourself over and over because comrades choose to ignore concrete facts and points, instead just yelling 'he's a communist, he's a communist' from deep within the swamp of bourgeois electoral politics.

Of course this will all fade in a while -- I don't anyone here lauding the 'communist' president of Moldova -- but the amount of praise blindly being heaped on him early is a throw back to similar mistakes made by folks around the situations in Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, etc.

dont be so negative!A COMMUNIST president was elected in a country.Thats good and far better from the fascists who were running too!I am coming from a family with roots in AKEL and i know a lot of thinks even that i choosen a different way and i didnt become a member of that party(anarchy way)!We should give our support in a comrade and hope for beter days!

It's not about being 'negative,' it's about being honest and rational, and approaching things from a communist position.

I don't care if the guy calls himself a 'communist' if he rules at the head of a capitalist state and is vocally committed to not only preserving but strengthening capitalist property relations! Hell, Pol Pot and the CPUSA call themselves communists too. Do you support them?

Damn you to whoever anti-reformist here.

If that's how you feel you should leave. What on earth are you doing here, on revolutionary left??

Like I said earlier, better a communist party heading a government than a liberal or conservative party.

How about a liberal party that calls itself communist? And how about taking a materialist stance and recognizing that this guy, even if he was a communist, is sitting at the head of a capitalist state?

Does "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machine, and deploy it for its own purposes" look familiar to you? How about "..the state is an instrument for the suppression of the working class nothing else."

Marx wrote "If you look at the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire, you will find that I declare that the next attempt of the French Revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to the other, but to smash it and this is the preliminary precondition for every real people's revolution on the continent." [Emphasis added]

As a comrade points out over at marxism.org "The task of Marxism is to lay bare the truth about the state and the danger it represents to the working class, but also to explain what should replace it and how."

Is a communist your enemy?I dont think so ,so be cool in what you are saying!

If that "communist" sits atop a capitalist state and assures the local bourgeois and imperialists that he has no plans to change the structure of the economy, then hell yes.

Are the "communists" atop the Chinese state our allies?

all the capitalists and fascists had fallen over christofias to eat him and started make propaganda against him and say that hi is like stalin

So what? Rightist propaganda doesn't have to be logical. In the United States the rightists call Hilary Clinton a 'communist' when in reality she is to the right of liberal in most other countries. They'll do anything to attack their enemies, including using crude anti-communist slander. They still refer to China as a "communist country" even though it's nothing of the sort. It's a way for them to advance their interests, plain and simple.

And of course not all -- or even most -- capitalists are opposed to this guy. The articles I quoted -- from Financial Times and Financial Mirror -- demonstrate that pretty clearly.

Even Lenin tried to attract investment to the USSR under his economic policy because the country needed some capital to begin development of the country.

Cyprus isn't isolated and to pretend that it isn't surrounded by capitalist governments won't help it as isolation is not going to help the development of socialism.

I never said anything about isolation or 'self-sufficiency' which is a reactionary idea traditionally pushed by "Maoists" and "anti-revisionists". Indeed one progressive aspect of capitalism is its integration of the world economy, thus paving the way for world communism. But this guy is not just saying Cyprus he will trade with other countries, he is assuring the local capitalist class that they will remain untouched, and will continue to work with their imperialist partners to exploit the local workers. Lenin didn't make any assertions like that. The soviet state pursued trade with other countries after capitalist property relations were overturned.

So perhaps he is trying a slower transition (but then again only time will tell what he is going to do)

No, not 'only time' will tell. He will tell you to.. in fact he already has.. you just refuse to listen.

But if you have a true communist at the head of state, the power of the state can be used for the interests of labor.

No it can't. This is a basic communist understanding that goes all the way back to Marx.

What do you think "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machine, and deploy it for its own purposes" means?

Although I doubt he will try to make any radical changes, just the fact that a Communist Party is the major party in a country member of the E.U. is good since it legitimizes communist ideology, which is a major issue if you take into account that countries like Hungary have banned the hammer and sickle.

"Legitimizes" it to whom? The bourgeoisie?? I think the "communists" in China have already done a "good" enough job of that.

What benefit do we get from this? We get to show the working class that reds are able to head up a capitalist state that is wielded by the bosses to oppress them as good as the next bourgeois political party? Oh boy! That's what we've always needed!

Of course the ban on the hammer and sickle is reactionary and must be overturned by struggle on the part of the working class. What that has to do with some reformist with a hammer and sickle lapel getting elected to head up a capitalist state escapes me.

I am glad that even Cypriotic anarchists are refuting the ridiculous bullshit that is spewed against the AKEL based on financial reviews (the same that suggest Raul is going to turn Cuba in to a free market economy).. respect

Yeah why would someone put any stock in two major capitalist outlets assuring their readers that capitalist will go on uninterrupted? After all the guy says he's a "Marxist-Leninist" so it must be lies! :laugh:

The best helmsman try to sail while standing on the shore..

Another old argument for reformism. "They're actually doing something, so they're above criticism." Never mind that "doing something" in this case means administering a capitalist state.

Nothing Human Is Alien

26th February 2008, 10:32

Arguments about the "progressive" Bolivian state are just ridiculous. Never mind the fact that "progressive" is a code-word for liberal, the topic has already been hashed out here numerous times. MAS itself says capitalism needs to exist there for another fifty years and its "nationalizations" consist of renegotiating contracts with capitalists.. It sits atop a capitalist state which busts up protests and otherwise oppresses workers (which is what its supposed to do).. if that's not enough reason for you to reject it, I don't know what is.

вор в законе

26th February 2008, 11:40

"Legitimizes" it to whom? The bourgeoisie??

To societies which have been taught that communists are equal to Nazis. Perhaps if you got out of that little ivory tower of yours you would be aware of the prevailing ideas of the society.

What benefit do we get from this? We get to show the working class that reds are able to head up a capitalist state that is wielded by the bosses to oppress them as good as the next bourgeois political party? Oh boy! That's what we've always needed!

The benefit that we get is that the communist ideology is spread because even though these "communist" parties are essentially capitalist, they still have to use some marxist rhetoric which could lead some people to truly find out that communism is not about managing capitalism but about overthrowing capitalism.

Contrary to the popular belief here, there is nothing that guarantees the survival of the communist ideology. The only reason why communism became a popular idea during the last century is because of the October Revolution and USSR. This site (Che-Lives) wouldn't exist since there would not be Che Guevara to speak of neither would you have ever heard about communism.

26th February 2008, 13:05

first of all ofcourse i dont support CPUSA!I am having this "dream" that he can do something,i am not a "fan" of him which dont understands what does he do!Because down here in cyprus even before 30-40 years being a communist it was a crime and you were killed for that, i was happy that finally fascists gone out of goverment!You cant understand my thinks around it because they are complicated(neither can i most of them) but that think gave me a hope for better times!i was not yelling nothing just i was saying my thoughts and what i knew!
Beacause i dont know very good english, i felt something like an attack from you comrade but as i said i am not really good at english i might had a mistake!I dont have nothing to share with you against you are a COMRADE to me!

Fuserg9:star:

Honggweilo

26th February 2008, 13:47

The Bolivian topic is derailing the issue, leave that for another topic

I don't anyone here lauding the 'communist' president of MoldovaThe moldovian CP has turned highly reactionairy over past few years with a parlementary majority. They where influenced by the KPRF and drenched with revisionism (to the point where they fight off communist factions in Transnistia from the begining, that was no suprise either... But the AKEL is a close ideological ally of the KKE of greece who took a strong anti-reformist line against all kinds of pan-european attempts to nullify the european communist movement and reduce it to social democracy, like for example the PCF in France. Besides that they have fought the NATO supported fascist regime, and the British and Turkish imperialists until the 70-80's . Its idiotic to compare the 2 parties concidering their background.

Lenin didn't make any assertions like that. The soviet state pursued trade with other countries after capitalist property relations were overturned. Didnt lenin assure the interests of the Kulaks during the NEP? that would also classify as "small investors and businessmen".

If that "communist" sits atop a capitalist state and assures the local bourgeois and imperialists that he has no plans to change the structure of the economy, then hell yes.

Are the "communists" atop the Chinese state our allies?Again an empty assumption and a fallacy.. Did you hear him upholding Deng Xiao Ping theory and Jiang Zemin thought?

The best helmsman try to sail while standing on the shore.. Another old argument for reformism. "They're actually doing something, so they're above criticism." Never mind that "doing something" in this case means administering a capitalist state. That rethoric can be reversed as easiy by saying they dont want to scare of investors investing in Cyprus due to personal interests..

Its funny how NHiS tries to ballantly equalize the AKEL to the CPUSA and reformism while knowing absolutely nothing about their situation, except by reading some vague resources.. Have actually read some of their documents, studied their history or met some of their members?? so please cut the quick assumptions and quit using US-centric arrogance..

Wanted Man

26th February 2008, 14:16

It does seem pretty easy to criticize the international communist movement from a position of relative obscurity in the vastness of the USA, but that is another discussion. It does not diminish my respect and solidarity for those comrades who are in the belly of the beast. Still, a club like the "PoWR" can build sections in other countries (as is the declared intention here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1078255&postcount=33)), but it will never accomplish as much as the international communist movement that already exists, and manifests itself in mass parties in many Mediterrenean countries.

The discussion is currently being waged entirely on the basis of idealist "line struggle": where class base is considered irrelevant, and the party purely gets attacked for having "a bad line".

It conveniently ignores the actual conditions: Cyprus is a tiny country deep inside the vast EU machine. However, the communist party AKEL is based in the Cypriot proletariat. At the same time, however, any chance of a proletarian revolution (in Cyprus, Europe, or even worldwide) is far off.

It is possible that a communist party enjoys considerable support (even plurality or majority) in a capitalist society without any possibility of a revolutionary situation, because of the objective circumstances in that country. So the party can either practice abstentionism, or it can listen to its voters and accept the role as the largest party in the country. In the latter case, it still cannot suddenly call a revolution, and impose "socialism from above" and "socialism in one country", because that's not how it works. The revolution is not plotted in party backrooms, and it certainly doesn't stand a chance in a country like Cyprus.

In short: arguments against the AKEL are already defeated by reality itself.

Nothing Human Is Alien

26th February 2008, 14:24

To societies which have been taught that communists are equal to Nazis. Perhaps if you got out of that little ivory tower of yours you would be aware of the prevailing ideas of the society.

So if we can manage a capitalist state well for 4 years, we'll show that we aren't equal to Nazis.. we're equal to every other capitalist politician. Yeah, I can definitely see how that could benefit us :rolleyes:

The benefit that we get is that the communist ideology is spread because even though these "communist" parties are essentially capitalist, they still have to use some marxist rhetoric which could lead some people to truly find out that communism is not about managing capitalism but about overthrowing capitalism.

This is one of the biggest piles of bullshit I have ever read here. And that's saying something!

You're arguing that if someone administers a capitalist state, in the same way that every capitalist politician before him did, but says 'Viva Marxism-Leninism!' every once in a while, workers will somehow all be won over to communism?!? :confused: That's absolutely insane. There have been leaders of capitalist states paying lip service to communism to years (China, India, Moldova, etc.), so by your logic, the revolution should already be here!

Contrary to the popular belief here, there is nothing that guarantees the survival of the communist ideology. The only reason why communism became a popular idea during the last century is because of the October Revolution and USSR. This site (Che-Lives) wouldn't exist since there would not be Che Guevara to speak of neither would you have ever heard about communism.

Bologna.

"Communism emerged as the expression of the interests of the working class and its historic task to abolish capitalism and create a communist world, that is, a world without class division, money, etc., in which the means of production are controlled collectively, and used to meet human need. ... Communism is not an ideal to be achieved, but rather a movement that grows out of the society of today with real, concrete tasks through which the society of tomorrow can be brought about. " - Organization, guidelines and methods of work of the Party of World Revolution (http://powr-prm.org/guidelines.html)

That rethoric can be reversed as easiy by saying they dont want to scare of investors investing in Cyprus due to personal interests..

Heaven forbid communist scare away the capitalists! :lol:

Its funny how NHiS tries to ballantly equalize the AKEL to the CPUSA and reformism while knowing absolutely nothing about their situation, except by reading some vague resources..

Have you read the words that have come out of their mouths? Seriously. They literally say 'we're not going to even attempt to overthrow capitalism.. but we are Marxist-Leninists!" and you trip over your feet to line up behind them and sing the Internationale. Pathetic.

Have actually read some of their documents, studied their history

Yep.

or met some of their members??

Yep, actually I met two former members in an old Greek section of the Bronx a few years back.

Anyway, having communists in your ranks doesn't make you a genuine communist party. See: Labour in the UK or the Sandanistas in Nicaragua.

so please cut the quick assumptions and quit using US-centric arrogance..

That's one thing I've never been called before! :laugh: I usually get "third-worldist" or "Castroite" or some crap.. (though to be honest I've gotten pretty much everything else to, from Leninist to Authoritarian to Libertarian to ultra-leftist).. Coming from the perspectives it has come from, I take it all in stride.

I guess the CPC and "communists" of Moldova don't deserve recognition. I brought them up to.. but I guess it was easier to ignore that, emphasize the (valid) comparison with the CPUSA, and scream "U.S.-centric! U.S.-centric!" to take the attention off the real issue.

Nothing Human Is Alien

26th February 2008, 14:38

The discussion is currently being waged entirely on the basis of idealist "line struggle": where class base is considered irrelevant, and the party purely gets attacked for having "a bad line".No it's not. It was clearly stated that this is a bourgeois party.The fact that most of its members are workers is irrelevant. Most of the members of the Democratic Party in the U.S. are workers too.

It does seem pretty easy to criticize the international communist movement from a position of relative obscurity in the vastness of the USA, but that is another discussion. It does not diminish my respect and solidarity for those comrades who are in the belly of the beast.

Still, a club like the "PoWR" can build sections in other countries (as is the declared intention here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showpost.php?p=1078255&postcount=33)), but it will never accomplish as much as the international communist movement that already exists, and manifests itself in mass parties in many Mediterrenean countries.Typical crap from an 'existing party' that is exasperated by the fact that workers would rather form new organizations then join their decrepit old sects. This is the same kind of condemnation Che drew after the release of 'Revolution in the revolution.' Of course the politics this comrade displays in this thread (e.g. supporting a 'mass party' which admittedly wants to help administer the capitalist state) shows exactly why new organizations must be formed in most of the world.

I'd rather be in a study group with just my wife for the rest of my life than spend a day in a sell-out party that ties workers to the blood thirsty parasites that live off of our labor.

It is possible that a communist party enjoys considerable support (even plurality or majority) in a capitalist society without any possibility of a revolutionary situation, because of the objective circumstances in that country.So, the majority of people want communism, but there's no way there can be a revolution... Forget 'waiting mechanistically for the correct conditions to arise' this comrade is basically writing off revolution all together for all time.

So the party can either practice abstentionism, or it can listen to its voters and accept the role as the largest party in the country. In the latter case, it still cannot suddenly call a revolution, and impose "socialism from above" and "socialism in one country", because that's not how it works. Really? The majority of the population can be for revolution, but cannot wage it? Are you serious? What utter bullshit.

Yeah, let's wait for the instantaneous world revolution that will spring up all at once, when 'the conditions are right.' This mix of Menshevism and ultra-left idealism is so pathetic I don't know if I should laugh or cry.

The revolution is not plotted in party backrooms, and it certainly doesn't stand a chance in a country like Cyprus.So let's just do the best we can under captalism 'comrades'. More classic reformism. I challenge you to say it's anything but.

If socialist revolution is an impossibility, why is there a Communist Party? Shouldn't they just organize themselves as a regular old liberal capitalist party, so they can make
capitalism 'better' while we all sit around and wait for the apple to fall from the tree?

This is no better than the weird MIM line that calls itself communist while saying there are no workers in their country to carry out a revolution. :laugh:

It conveniently ignores the actual conditions: Cyprus is a tiny country deep inside the vast EU machine.And Cuba was a massive, advanced capitalist-imperialist country when the revolution broke out there.. :rolleyes:

How is this different from a preacher telling the poor to be patient and wait for better conditions which will come after they die?

вор в законе

26th February 2008, 14:49

So if we can manage a capitalist state well for 4 years, we'll show that we aren't equal to Nazis.. we're equal to every other capitalist politician. Yeah, I can definitely see how that could benefit us

Good.

This is one of the biggest piles of bullshit I have ever read here. And that's saying something!

You're arguing that if someone administers a capitalist state, in the same way that every capitalist politician before him did, but says 'Viva Marxism-Leninism!' every once in a while, workers will somehow all be won over to communism?!? :confused: That's absolutely insane. There have been leaders of capitalist states paying lip service to communism to years (China, India, Moldova, etc.), so by your logic, the revolution should already be here!

No. What I am trying to say that if there are nation-states whose official ideology is Communism, even though they are not really communist or socialist by any means, serves our interests since they are propagating the ideology.

The communist inspired guerrillas of Nepal wouldn't exist without China, despite the fact that China has nothing to do with Communism. The same applies to Cuba and Vietnam. They would, of course, start a guerrilla warfare but communism wouldn't have been their official ideology.

Bologna.

"Communism emerged as the expression of the interests of the working class and its historic task to abolish capitalism and create a communist world, that is, a world without class division, money, etc., in which the means of production are controlled collectively, and used to meet human need. ... Communism is not an ideal to be achieved, but rather a movement that grows out of the society of today with real, concrete tasks through which the society of tomorrow can be brought about. " - Organization, guidelines and methods of work of the Party of World Revolution (http://www.anonym.to/?http://powr-prm.org/guidelines.html)

Interesting read. Thanks. But I think copy and pasting "Twenty-Seven Ways to Cook Frog Legs" would have been more relevant as regards to our conversation.

Class Struggle is an unavoidable part of the Capitalist system. Its inherently tied to Capitalism because Capitalism is a class society. Communism on the other hand is not. There is nothing that guarantees that there will actually be communism as an ideology in a century if people don't propagate it. Under this light of events, it is better to have in the administration a Communist Party than some right-wing party. Live with it.

Honggweilo

26th February 2008, 14:53

It conveniently ignores the actual conditions: Cyprus is a tiny country deep inside the vast EU machine. And Cuba was a massive, advanced capitalist-imperialist country when the revolution broke out there.. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

How is this different from a preacher telling the poor to be patient and wait for better conditions which will come after they die? Yes like the objective political and economical sitaution of the caribean and the communist movement was anywhere comparable to modern day Cyprus. Your a+b = c+d logic gets really old

Really? The majority of the population can be for revolution, but cannot wage it? Are you serious? What utter bullshit.

Yeah, let's wait for the instantaneous world revolution that will spring up all at once, when 'the conditions are right.' This mix of Menshevism and ultra-left idealism is so pathetic I don't know if I should laugh or cry.
Comming from someone who want to overthrow a workers party by setting up a secterian small study group consiting over up to 1 person (who already had 2 major splits, one through the intarwebz) on a small mediteranian island insisting to force revolution upon its masses and being completely self sustaining? Calling us mensheviks and ultra-leftist after that sounds so pathetic I don't know if I should laugh or cry :laugh:

Nothing Human Is Alien

28th February 2008, 10:27

The FPM never split, or even came close to it. You may want to get your facts straight before you try to attack someone based on something you came up with in your head. And I said I would rather be in a study group than a capitalist 'mass' party with a hammer and sickle in their logo. As for us, we have have many more than "2 members", and sections in the Americas, Africa, Asia and Oceania. Nice try though.

The rest of that shit you two have said is so pathetic it doesn't even deserve a response. I never thought I would see 'communists' openly argue that as long as a capitalist politician calls himself a communist it helps the working class.... insanity.

Bucketmaster101

28th February 2008, 12:05

You were joking right?

You would hope so wouldnt you :P

But on a serious note, this is a great victory, not just for the man, but for Cyprus too. I was there not too long ago, and to see that state of it, well... it wasn't too nice as I'm sure you can imagine. Let's pray that this man can do something to change it for the better.

-W.

Keyser

28th February 2008, 19:36

It is so sad and really says a lot about the state of much of the political Left today, that there are people cheering on the election of another bourgeois politician who will administer the state and society along capitalist lines.

None of the AKEL supporters posting here, have yet to answer what both I and NHIA have asked them, just because a party or politician calls themselves communist, in certain cases that does not make it so.

Again I'll give the example of the Chinese Communist Party, does that not at least make any of you step back and think for a moment about the implications of supporting AKEL?

Do any of you really think that the new AKEL government will actually do anything to rid Cyprus of it's capitalist system or assist in the working class in their task of taking power away from the bourgeoisie and placing power at the hands of the people?

As for the absurd claim that a bourgeois party that calls itself communist is better than nothing, nothing could be further from the truth.

Once the working class of Cyprus have gone through a few years of AKEL rule (and being a bourgeois party, AKEL will implement policies that benefit the capitalist ruling class and will attack the few benefits the workers now have), the working class will grow to hate AKEL as much as any other bourgeois party. So if anything, calling itself communist when it is clearly not, AKEL's deceptive tactic will most likely put workers off communism, not garner their support for communism.

28th February 2008, 19:42

Keyser

28th February 2008, 19:55

Because i posted here and you might talking and for me ,firstly i am NOT akel supporter!i have some hopes to say because of the bad past down here (i wrote something some posts above)!

By AKEL supporters, I meant those posters on this thread who supported the AKEL party or those who thought that a AKEL government will bring about a communist transformation of society in Cyprus.

I did not mean just AKEL party members as such.

I have the hope that after cyprus problem will solved communism may come.But thats just a hope!

Of course the division of Cyprus along nationlist ethnic lines is regressive and unity between Turkish Cypriot workers and Greek Cypriot workers is needed.

Workers solidarity should always be our aim, not nationalist reaction and ethnic isolationism.

However, at most, AKEL will achieve a unity of Turkish Cyprus and Greek Cyprus along bourgeois capitalist lines, not a progressive unity of the Cypriot people along communist lines.

But that would be the upmost limit of what can occur under a AKEL government, don't expect socialism or working class liberation, as AKEL have no interest in seeing that happen.

The working class can only ever liberate themselves by tehir own struggle. Not through bourgeois elections, not through bourgeois centre-left governments and not through AKEL as it stands.

Instead of wasting good energy and enthusiasim on AKEL, you would be better off linking up with other communists and socialists in Cyprus to form a real, genuine communist movement in Cyprus, one with a firm base in the working class and more importantly, a movement led by the working class.

RNK

28th February 2008, 19:55

This thread reeks with the stench of the dead corpse of reformism.

LOL! Best opening line ever.

Everyone knows I am a staunch opponent of reformism, but another side of the coin needs to be discussed. Namely:

What can a communist government that is voted into power really do to tackle class struggle?

We still live in a world dominated by Euro-American capital. And by dominated, I really mean completely and absolutely controlled to the most visceral and bitter degree.

Isolationist socialist governments have shown throughout modern history the necessity of an internationalist movement and the bankruptcy of "permanent" socialism in one country. Without a global movement of revolutionary progress, no matter how revolutionary or reformist the government of Cyprus may be, there is little they can do to turn the tide of capitalist production relations which will not result in overwhelming poverty, shortages and starvation.

So on the one hand, we understand the defficiency in the reformist strategy (though I'd like to point out the slight hypocrisy involved here when some leftists support a country like Venezuela for its reformism and denounce others for theirs); but we also understand the necessity to form a broad, united global movement which will revolutionize society, aggressively tackle the issue of class struggle and bring about a much more acute and lasting change.

Will protesting these reformists coming into power be a more progressive step for the world's workers? Or will supporting their progress and agitating for further and larger steps towards revolutionary upheavel be more useful?

I don't know. I'm in a really mellow, love-thy-(communist)-neighbour mood right now.

Keyser

28th February 2008, 20:00

Led Zeppelin

28th February 2008, 20:26

On the "but Cyprus is a small island in a sea of capitalism!" argument;

Cuba is also (and has been for quite some time) an island in a sea of capitalism. Yes, the Soviet Union was there to support them...but that ended in the early 90's, and what did Cuba do? Did it revert to open capitalism in order to "trade better" and "lure in investment"? No, it stayed its course and kept a largely planned economy.

No one is calling for Cyprus to become the next North-Korea or Zimbabwe. Cuba has a centrally planned economy and trades with most of the world community, there is no reason that Cyprus would not be able to do the same thing.

Sure, at first the capitalists will be frightened, as they always are when a nation withdraws from capitalism, however they'll soon continue trade, just as they are currently doing with Cuba.

Who would be better off? The working-class of Cyprus, just as the working-class of Cuba is better off under the planned economy than it would be under a capitalist economic system.

Of course all of this is hypothetical; AKEL is a reformist social-democratic party with total disregard for class-struggle and socialism. Real socialism, not bourgeois socialism as the SP (Socialist Party in the Netherlands) proclaims.

RNK

28th February 2008, 20:35

Yes, the question was, though:

What more can individual governments and individual movements do without a total worldwide destabilization (actively or passively) of capitalism's domination?

To that end, is it more practical to support these individual (if reformist) movements, or to protest them?

Do we want a progressive quasi-social democracy in these countries, or outright bourgeois capitalism?

The natural answer is, of course, "we want neither -- we want revolution, we want communism!" But this demand is impractical based on the current material conditions of the world.

RNK

28th February 2008, 20:41

uba is also (and has been for quite some time) an island in a sea of capitalism. Yes, the Soviet Union was there to support them...but that ended in the early 90's, and what did Cuba do? Did it revert to open capitalism in order to "trade better" and "lure in investment"? No, it stayed its course and kept a largely planned economy.

A largely planned economy; we all know the capitalist market injections Cuba had to give itself in order to survive, and that alone proves my point -- Cuba has been unable to move any further; it is essentially in perpetual transition.

Cuba has a centrally planned economy and trades with most of the world community, there is no reason that Cyprus would not be able to do the same thing.

Of course not, but is there any indication they will not? And my arguement was that there is a limit to what a socialist-driven economy can do before it hits the brick wall of capitalism.

Of course all of this is hypothetical; AKEL is a reformist social-democratic party with total disregard for class-struggle and socialism.

I'd really appreciate AKEL sources for this, since there doesn't seem to be any here. I agree, if less harshly; surely what Venezuela has experienced in the past decade is little more than reformist social-democracy which has failed to outrightly tackle the issue of capitalist production relations, and while Chavez gives lip service to socialism (as I'm sure AKEL does) there has been little progress as far as inflicting permanent damage to capitalism. Now, I support the Venezuelan project, both for its socially and economically progress and its anti-imperialist stance -- is AKEL any more different? If so, please provide information.

Led Zeppelin

28th February 2008, 21:01

A largely planned economy; we all know the capitalist market injections Cuba had to give itself in order to survive, and that alone proves my point -- Cuba has been unable to move any further; it is essentially in perpetual transition.

Yes, and I never said that Cyprus should fully nationalize its economy and run it on a centrally planned program right away.

That's impossible. However, since there isn't even 1% of the economy which runs on a centrally planned program (correct me if I'm wrong here) even though the party in power claims to be communist, it pretty much doesn't give you an argument.

Of course not, but is there any indication they will not? And my arguement was that there is a limit to what a socialist-driven economy can do before it hits the brick wall of capitalism.

There may be, I already responded to that though: "Sure, at first the capitalists will be frightened, as they always are when a nation withdraws from capitalism, however they'll soon continue trade, just as they are currently doing with Cuba."

I'd really appreciate AKEL sources for this, since there doesn't seem to be any here. I agree, if less harshly; surely what Venezuela has experienced in the past decade is little more than reformist social-democracy which has failed to outrightly tackle the issue of capitalist production relations, and while Chavez gives lip service to socialism (as I'm sure AKEL does) there has been little progress as far as inflicting permanent damage to capitalism. Now, I support the Venezuelan project, both for its socially and economically progress and its anti-imperialist stance -- is AKEL any more different? If so, please provide information.

You need sources? Go over this thread and click on the links to the official proclamations of AKEL on the matter, which doesn't claim to introduce a centrally planned program to even one company.

Cuba nationalized its economy and introduced a centrally planned system. Did it take courage to do so? Yes. Are the workers there better off for it? Yes.

That's enough sources you need to make conclusions.

RNK

28th February 2008, 22:30

I don't feel like link-hunting, so I'll take your word for it.

My beef was mainly with the various people who are all up about "wtf they're not introducing communism THIS INSTANT wtffffffffffffffff" and complaining that a classless propertyless society hasnt been instantly created there, without consideration to the fact that such a thing is impossible.

Essentially, I'm against the lack of material analysis in their criticism -- but I seem to agree with yours.

Wanted Man

28th February 2008, 22:48

I would agree with your argument, LZ, but for one thing: Cuba had a revolution! The situation would have been comparable if the 26/7 movement had never existed, and the Popular Socialist Party had gotten into power through a vote. Things would have gone quite differently.

Led Zeppelin

29th February 2008, 00:03

If they attained the full majority, how would it have gone any differently? :confused:

Surely the leaders of the party still would have wanted to nationalize industry and introduce a centrally planned economy?

If I remember correctly it took a few years before they actually moved ahead with it, but they did it eventually. The AKEL seems to not want to move ahead with it ever.

I mean, if it's not going to agitate for revolution, and if it already has state-power, how else could they have that as their aim? Are they going to put it back in their program when they get elected out of office, only to be elected again and to disregard it?

That doesn't make sense.

вор в законе

29th February 2008, 14:29

So if anything, calling itself communist when it is clearly not, AKEL's deceptive tactic will most likely put workers off communism, not garner their support for communism.

That is only your opinion.

вор в законе

29th February 2008, 14:38

On the "but Cyprus is a small island in a sea of capitalism!" argument;

Cuba is also (and has been for quite some time) an island in a sea of capitalism.

Cuba is 11X times bigger than Cyprus and has 11X times larger population and resources which means that they are less dependent on trade.

The working-class of Cyprus, just as the working-class of Cuba is better off under the planned economy than it would be under a capitalist economic system.

Yea right. That is why Raul is planning to liberalize the economy.

Led Zeppelin

29th February 2008, 19:41

Cuba is 11X times bigger than Cyprus and has 11X times larger population and resources which means that they are less dependent on trade.

Actually, when comparing GDP's of both, Cyprus' economy is only half the size of Cuba's.

Your line of reasoning is skewed: Cuba is 11 times bigger (no idea if that number is correct, too lazy to check), therefore its economy is 11 times bigger.

The economy of Taiwan is bigger than that of the Congo, even though the former nation is "11 times smaller".

Anyway, you missed my point. If one nation with a small centrally planned economy (small in comparison to developed capitalist nations) can function while preserving its trade-relations, then so can another small centrally planned economy.

You have presented no reason as to why it couldn't.

Yea right. That is why Raul is planning to liberalize the economy.

Irrelevant to my point.

Cuba has had that system for decades, and you cannot argue that it wasn't beneficial for the Cuban working-class. If it changes now, then it would be a defeat for the working-class. You would have had a point if I supported the "liberalization" of Cuba's economic system, but obviously I don't.

Strange of you to criticize Cuba's economic system first for being too big, and then for wanting to transform itself for being too small.

I guess contradictions become commonplace when you're trying to defend a view which doesn't make sense.

Keyser

29th February 2008, 21:08

That is only your opinion.

History has shown otherwise. It is from the past mistakes and defeats of some communist movements that I base my view that AKEL will not do anything for our cause whatsoever.

It is only natural that if a bourgeois party (AKEL) falsely uses the name of communism to label it's own bourgeois government and it's programme for managing capitalism in Cyprus, then the working class will most likely associate communism with bourgeois centre-left reformism and the continued preservation of capitalism, not with what communism is really about, working class liberation and a complete socialising of the economy and society.

Besides mocking my use of materialist analysis and my use of past history to judge and compare the situation in Cyprus, what evidence or points have you made to back up the false/misguided claim that AKEL is either socialist or communist?

So far you have not provided anything.

R_P_A_S

1st March 2008, 07:07

what a waste if you ask me

Panda Tse Tung

1st March 2008, 08:33

Actually, when comparing GDP's of both, Cyprus' economy is only half the size of Cuba's.

A. A GDP isn't a great 'economic miracle meter'.
B. Who states where that GDP came from?
C. What's GDP got to do, got do with it? Whats GDP but a secondary indicator (seeing as Russia has the 'greatest GDP of the world')?

Your line of reasoning is skewed: Cuba is 11 times bigger (no idea if that number is correct, too lazy to check), therefore its economy is 11 times bigger.

He mentioned resources too, which is a highly valid point.

Anyway, you missed my point. If one nation with a small centrally planned economy (small in comparison to developed capitalist nations) can function while preserving its trade-relations, then so can another small centrally planned economy.

Ever heard of the statement 'comparing apples with pears'?

I don't know/care where this Cuba-comparison came from, but never ever compare one nations situation to another. For no country is comparable in any way.

Led Zeppelin

1st March 2008, 08:44

A. A GDP isn't a great 'economic miracle meter'.
B. Who states where that GDP came from?
C. What's GDP got to do, got do with it? Whats GDP but a secondary indicator (seeing as Russia has the 'greatest GDP of the world')?

GDP's are commonly used to indicate the development of economies, I'm not sure how else you would like us to compare economies. Perhaps go around knocking on people's doors and asking them "do you feel rich? If so, how rich on a scale from one to ten?"

Yeah, no.

Those GDP numbers come from any source which uses the GDP. Google it and you'll come to the same numbers.

And Russia does not have the "greatest GDP in the world", where the hell did you pull that out of?

He mentioned resources too, which is a highly valid point.

No it isn't, because both Cuba and Cyprus have ridiculously insignificant resources available to them when compared to advanced capitalist nations.

That isn't the issue and it never was. The issue is that both the working-class of Cyprus and the working-class of Cuba are better off under a centrally planned economic system.

Ever heard of the statement 'comparing apples with pears'?

I don't know/care where this Cuba-comparison came from, but never ever compare one nations situation to another. For no country is comparable in any way.

You would have had a point if I was comparing Cyprus with Taiwan, and arguing for Cyprus to become capitalist...oh wait, it already is.

The reason Cyprus can be compared to Cuba is obvious, and I have already stated it above, I don't like repeating myself so I'll just link you to the post in which I elaborated on it: Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1085351&postcount=64)

KurtFF8

2nd March 2008, 18:59

I don't consider the government or economic system of Venezuela to be socialist either.

It is reformist as Hugo Chavez is using the bourgeois state to implement his policies and the working class has not yet staged a revolution to achieve it's liberation, thus capitalist social and economic relations still remain in Venezuela.

The same is to be said for Evo Morales (the Bolivian President) and his MAS party.

But Chavez is trying to make life easier for the working-class (not something unique to socialists of course) but is also trying to democratically transition to socialism. e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4155936.stm

Die Neue Zeit

2nd March 2008, 19:15

^^^ There can be no "democratic transition" to socialism EXCEPT under explicit proletocracy - absolute rule by the workers. Between minimum, reformist, and revolutionary demands, the Chavez government can fulfill only the first two.

вор в законе

2nd March 2008, 22:19

Actually, when comparing GDP's of both, Cyprus' economy is only half the size of Cuba's.

Your line of reasoning is skewed: Cuba is 11 times bigger (no idea if that number is correct, too lazy to check), therefore its economy is 11 times bigger.

The economy of Taiwan is bigger than that of the Congo, even though the former nation is "11 times smaller".

I think we have a problem of linguistic nature here. Show me where I mentioned anything about the size of the Cuban economy as compared to Cyprus.

What I am trying to say is that Cuba has more resources therefore they are less dependent or trade while Cyprus has almost zero resources hence if they follow an isolationist policy they will all probably starve.

Anyway, you missed my point. If one nation with a small centrally planned economy (small in comparison to developed capitalist nations) can function while preserving its trade-relations, then so can another small centrally planned economy.

You have presented no reason as to why it couldn't.

Cuba has had that system for decades, and you cannot argue that it wasn't beneficial for the Cuban working-class. If it changes now, then it would be a defeat for the working-class. You would have had a point if I supported the "liberalization" of Cuba's economic system, but obviously I don't.

This is a very simplistic assertion plus I don't have time to tell you why a centrally planned economy is insufficient especially in isolated Caribbean islands.

Strange of you to criticize Cuba's economic system first for being too big, and then for wanting to transform itself for being too small.

I guess contradictions become commonplace when you're trying to defend a view which doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense because I never said that Cuba's economy is bigger, I said the island has more resources which means that you have set up a straw man argument.

вор в законе

2nd March 2008, 22:23

Keyser I didn't wrote that AKEL is communist, my thoughts are in page1 & page2 while I was arguing with that Nothing_Human person.

KurtFF8

3rd March 2008, 00:05

Led Zeppelin

3rd March 2008, 07:17

I think we have a problem of linguistic nature here. Show me where I mentioned anything about the size of the Cuban economy as compared to Cyprus.

What I am trying to say is that Cuba has more resources therefore they are less dependent or trade while Cyprus has almost zero resources hence if they follow an isolationist policy they will all probably starve.

I never said they should "follow an isolationist policy", Cuba isn't following one either.

I said they should implement a planned economic system like Cuba is, which has worked very well for them.

This is a very simplistic assertion plus I don't have time to tell you why a centrally planned economy is insufficient especially in isolated Caribbean islands.

There's something else besides time that you don't have, and that is facts.

It is a fact that Cuba's economy is better off than the rest of the capitalist third world.

It doesn't make sense because I never said that Cuba's economy is bigger, I said the island has more resources which means that you have set up a straw man argument.

Actually I didn't, because I wasn't only arguing this issue with you, but also with other people who did bring up the economy.

It doesn't matter though, I refuted all the claims, including the resources one.

Why exactly do you think that AKEL isn't going to try to introduce massive socialist reforms? This isn't rhetorical, I'm actually just ignorant of the situation in Cyprus and the party itself.

Simple; because they said they weren't.

Click the links to the official sources already provided in this thread for more information.

Panda Tse Tung

3rd March 2008, 17:58

GDP's are commonly used to indicate the development of economies,

Yes indeed. By Capitalists.

I'm not sure how else you would like us to compare economies.

HPI-2

Those GDP numbers come from any source which uses the GDP. Google it and you'll come to the same numbers.

I didn't ask where the 'numbers' came from. I asked where the GDP came from, you know. The moneyzzz. In the case of Cyprus. Well, lets investigate.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cy.html

Agriculture - products: citrus, vegetables, barley, grapes, olives, vegetables; poultry, pork, lamb; dairy, cheese
Industries: tourism, food and beverage processing, cement and gypsum production, ship repair and refurbishment, textiles, light chemicals, metal products, wood, paper, stone, and clay productshttps://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cu.html

Agriculture - products: sugar, tobacco, citrus, coffee, rice, potatoes, beans; livestock Industries: sugar, petroleum, tobacco, construction, nickel, steel, cement, agricultural machinery, pharmaceuticals

Ok, looking at these facts. Well, just look at them and i hope you know what i'm talking about. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cy.html)

And Russia does not have the "greatest GDP in the world", where the hell did you pull that out of?

It's from the oil-sector. I was wrong their nr. 16. Still proves my point though.
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/9123-8.cfm

No it isn't, because both Cuba and Cyprus have ridiculously insignificant resources available to them when compared to advanced capitalist nations.

Yes, cause the Netherlands has such vast resources available to them.

That isn't the issue and it never was. The issue is that both the working-class of Cyprus and the working-class of Cuba are better off under a centrally planned economic system.

True, though the questions arise, is it possible and is i reasonable. It is possible, yes. But it's certainly not reasonable under given conditions. It would be idealistic and adventurist to implement a planned economy in Cyprus right now.

The reason Cyprus can be compared to Cuba is obvious, and I have already stated it above, I don't like repeating myself so I'll just link you to the post in which I elaborated on it: Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showpost.php?p=1085351&postcount=64)

I read it, it's not a valid point. No country can be compared to another country in terms of social, political and economical organization and situation.

Ferryman 5

3rd March 2008, 20:20

This electoral victory by a nominal ‘communist’ in a capitalist state at this point in history, when communism is widely alleged to have bean defeated, is very interesting. Whether the man and his party are reformists or not is obviously worth debating, but equally important are the concerns and aspirations of the workers and middle classes who voted for him and how they are responding to the global economic crisis and the US war in their region.

Led Zeppelin

4th March 2008, 02:44

Yes indeed. By Capitalists.

No, by anyone who isn't a paranoid pseudo-leftist freak and wants to compare the general health of economies.

HPI-2

Have fun using that to compare economies with other paranoid pseudo-leftist freaks.

I didn't ask where the 'numbers' came from. I asked where the GDP came from, you know. The moneyzzz. In the case of Cyprus. Well, lets investigate.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cy.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cu.html

Ok, looking at these facts. Well, just look at them and i hope you know what i'm talking about. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cy.html)

Yes, both economies are based to a high degree on the tourist industry, Cyprus more than Cuba, and Cuba is still a planned economy with a booming tourist industry, even though that specific industry is to an extent privately owned, which I have no problems with in Cyprus, since I never said that the entire economy should be nationalized and run according to a planned system.

In other words, you have no argument.

It's from the oil-sector. I was wrong their nr. 16. Still proves my point though.

No it doesn't prove your point, it proves my point.

You should've said that you pulled that number out of your ass, then you might've been better off in terms of utterly failing at making shit up.

Yes, cause the Netherlands has such vast resources available to them.

Dutch corporations have huge resources available to them, yes.

True, though the questions arise, is it possible and is i reasonable. It is possible, yes. But it's certainly not reasonable under given conditions. It would be idealistic and adventurist to implement a planned economy in Cyprus right now.

Yes, god forbid the Cyprus official "communists" actually do something as "idealistic" and "adventurist" as benefiting the working-class by offering free healthcare, nationalizing key industries and thereby eliminating unemployment etc.

Luckily the Cuban communists didn't listen to pseudo-leftists like you, if they did they wouldn't have done something so "idealistic" and "adventurist" either, and the Cuban working-class would have been much worse off in terms of living conditions.

I read it, it's not a valid point. No country can be compared to another country in terms of social, political and economical organization and situation.

Which is why you just compared it to the Netherlands, right?

You can't argue, stop wasting my time.