Out of a serie of articles on my blog:

wetenschappelijksocialisme.blogspot.com Opportunism and revisionism in the circles of the International Communist Seminar. zondag 3 mei 2009 Fighting opportunism, to beat revisionism 8 (....) I was once member of the Workers Party of Belgium, expelled in 2005 by the group that took over the leadership in 2004 of the Workers Party of Belgium (WPB, website: pvda.be,ptb.be, wpb.be) (...) Now the WPB is in the end of a transformation from a revolutionary Marxist party in to a REFORMIST party, like happened with the SP in the Netherlands. The only difference is that the SP is not trying to hide his REFORMISM under « Marxist sounding phraseology ». The WPB organized yearly the International Communist Seminary (ICS, website: icsbrussels.org) in Brussels. The list of participant organisations is a list of parties that declared themselves being communist parties or organisations that are building communist parties. Of course each participant party or organisation is considering, at the same time (while respecting the autonomy of the other parties or organisations) each OTHER party and organisation as communist, basing itself on Marxism Leninism, searching his way to a strategy of revolution and building socialism (within the geographic frontiers of the international recognized nation-state where the organisation happens to exist - and the members of that organisation are living, working ….. and struggling.) Perhaps this is the reason, beside the BLIND « respect of each other autonomy » that other communist organisations are still recognizing the WPB as a sister-communist organisation, while the WPB is still maintaining a formal « enthusiasm », « respect » and « solidarity » with al those « sister-communist » parties and organisations participating at the ICS. (....) I want now analyse the political line, the strategically program and the concrete analyses and conclusions of one or some communist organisations. I will try to prove the antagonist CONTRADICTIONS in political and ideological line (apart from secondary non-antagonist contradictions in political analyse to solve with discussion) between organisations that still are considering each other as communist and Marxist. I will use their contributions for the ICS and their openly published texts. I will try to show where and when there is a development of opportunism, as a kind of « warning » that, allowing that opportunism to exist (and not fighting it) creates the danger of emerging revisionism INSIDE the organisation. And the existence (or the allowance to exist by lack of enough vigilance ) of opportunism, make an organisation blind for the appearance of opportunism in sister-organisation, AND is making a struggle against revisionism in the international communist movement impossible. Of course this will be just « my opinion ». It is the responsibility and the autonomy of a communist party to judge, based on collective discussion, if certain conceptions are opportunist or not. (...) I will start now to give some illustrations of antagonist contradictions between statements of the WPB itself and between statements of the WPB and other participant organisations of the ICS, for example the Greek KKE and the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist). But first, about contradictions inside the WPB itself In 2006 on the 15th International Communist Seminar the point of view of the WPB was: « Since its foundation, in 1885, the Parti Ouvrier Belge (POB), the (social democratic) Belgian Workers Party, has been characterized by its outrageous reformism. The POB was not a political party in the proper sense of the word. It was a conglomerate of political groups, trade unions, cooperatives, mutual insurance systems, choirs, circles of artists, athletes, etc. At the start of the First World War, the total number of members paying their membership dues amounted to 600,000! But the political groups in the proper sense that made part of the POB counted only 13,000 members. It's a most ingenious political system! With 13,000 members, the reformist party had 600,000 families under its tight direction1 »

1Contribution to the 15th International Communist Seminar , "Present and past experiences in the international communist movement". Brussels, 5- 7 May 2006, The Communist International and the Belgian

How is it possible that on her 8th congress in 2008 Peter Mertens, the new elected president of the WPB could declare: " The renewed WPB will be in the coming period fixed to principles as also flexible (supple)(…) In 1885 was founded the Belgian Workers Party. The BWP had certain socialist principles, but those were - special after the first election victory in 1894 - very quickly given up (…) There came a great disgust against the deep going debate and against the socialist theory(…) The characteristic properties of the capitalist system, the purpose of socialism, the long term interests of the working class…. It was all « forgotten » and sacrificed to the (real or) seemed advantages of the moment.(…) The vision about the future of the society and about socialism vanished. (…) While the BWP loosened the socialist principles, she loosened also the support to the ant colonist struggle… and let fall… the right of self-determination of the Congolese people2» Peter, those « certain socialist principles » were they revolutionary principles or reformist principles?…or is there a third kind of principles…..? In the Marxist Studies no 29 of March 1996 (see on marx.be) a dossier was made by cadres of the WPB about the BWP, warning against « harmful illusions » that « live by some workers and union-militants » that « at the end of the 19th century the BWP was still socialist, even revolutionary ». The BWP was « from the moment she was founded, through and through reformist »: « It was one of the most moderated parties, if not the most moderated party of the Second International. A party that already on her founding congress in April 1885 refused to call herself ’socialist’. This name would frighten to much. It was a party that struggled against every revolutionary perspective and led a fierce struggle against every form of class struggle that she was not able to canalise. » Peter, of what « socialist principles » are you speaking if the BWP even did not want to be IN NAME a socialist party? How is it possible that a communist party, were once the majority of the communist members and cadres once take a clear position against reformism, accepted on her 8th congress in 2008 a position that is PROTECTING reformism? Now about antagonist contradictions between « sister communist parties »of the ICS A similar question can be asked: «How is it possible that contradictory statements are passed and be seen as «real Marxist contributions» in the ICS and that there is in no way any critic on the respective line and analyse of the different communist parties, between the participating communist parties of the ICS? » Read the following parts of analyses of the KKE (Greece)and the CPGB(ml) (Great Britain) about the Leninist party principles and the task of the communist party in his work in the working class and in the unions: « The revolutionary party of the working class has a duty: 1.To promote to the maximum the liberating revolutionary theory that will guide the working class to revolution – spreading this knowledge and understanding throughout the working-class movement at every opportunity; 2.To fight against all those who: (i) distort revolutionary theory to try to remove its revolutionary essence and (ii) belittle theory in order to encourage the working class to remain under the exclusive sway of bourgeois ideology.(…) As has been mentioned above, it is a very important part of the work of a working-class party to counter wrong ideas that help the bourgeoisie to maintain itself in power. The wrong ideas most prevalent in the working-class movement are those of opportunism and social chauvinism, which act as chains binding the working class to the bourgeois system. In the imperialist heartlands, where capitalism is most 'advanced' and one might, therefore, have expected the working-class movement to be likewise 'advanced', the distortion of revolutionary ideology for the purpose of diverting the masses from the path of revolution has been all the more effective to the extent that superprofits extracted by imperialism from the suffering and super-exploited masses of the oppressed countries, in addition to those extracted from the working class at home, has given 'our' bourgeoisie economic leeway to bribe upper layers of the working class, the labour aristocracy, in the imperialist countries and thus split the working class. Imperialist looting also provides the bourgeoisie of the imperialist countries with vast funds on which it draws to hamper the efforts of the socialist countries rapidly to improve living conditions for their own

Communist Party, Workers' Party of Belgium, Juliette Broder and Ludo Martens

2In the congress documents (published on the website of the WPB - pvda.be or ptb.be)of the 8th congress in februari 2008

workers.(…) All the same, one can appreciate the extent to which, fertilised by a few drops of imperialist superprofits, a most luxuriant growth of opportunism is still suffocating our British working class movement, to the extent that a one-off one-day strike in opposition to the decimation of workers' pension schemes passes as the absolute height of militancy. As if by osmosis, the concentrate of opportunism attracts to itself and contaminates most of idealistic youth from the moment they begin to try to militate for the benefit of the working class. Again there is an overwhelming temptation to try to build the influence of the revolutionary line by compromising with opportunism, but it is a temptation that must be strongly resisted. There is a veritable Augean stable of opportunist filth to be cleared out, and it should be obvious to all that only a properly steeled Communist Party, which is thoroughly firm in principle and prepared to keep its head when all about it are losing theirs, can successfully undertake such a Herculean task.3» It is clear that this conception of a communist party as « principle » party is totally the opposite of that of the WPB on her 8th congress in 2008! Read next: « From the moment that the party of a New Type first appeared, its ideological opponents also began attacking it, focussing principally on its character, its identity, and its ideological principles. From the very beginning the capitalists and their apologists understood, from their class position, the role to be played by a revolutionary party of a new type in securing the political emancipation of the working class. The arrows pointed against such a party by revisionism, both right and left, are also very poisonous. This ideological attack continues unabated right up to the present day and it will continue as long as the capitalist system rules this planet and capitalist relations continue to exist. If we will study the whole period during which lively discussions took place about what kind of party was needed and on what principles it should be based, we can conclude that the proletarian party was born through an uncompromising struggle against the opportunism that had arisen within its own ranks at that time. Without this struggle it would have been impossible to establish party of a new type at the particular moment when the need for revolution was the ripe. The experience of the political organisation of the working class was systematized by Lenin, and it is to that great revolutionary that the working class owes the foundation of the leading role of the vanguard party in the political struggle of the working class and other working people both in the course of the revolution and following the victory of the revolution. (…) The theory of Marxism Leninism as a revolutionary ideology of the working class was created and is developing in the conditions of a hard and non-compromising struggle against the bourgeois ideology. Describing 3 main forms of the struggle of the proletariat for its liberation (the economic, the political and the ideological) Lenin stressed that the ideological struggle against the bourgeoisie will be long and complicated. The proletariat can achieve victory in this struggle only on condition that it remains faithful to Marxist Leninist theory, unmasking at the same time even the small influences of the capitalist ideology in the workers’ movement. In his book "What is to be done?" Lenin wrote that "the only choice is – either bourgeois or socialist ideology. There is no middle course …Hence, to belittle socialist ideology in any way, to turn aside from it in the slightest degree means to strengthen bourgeois ideology " (3) That is why the struggle of communists for the purity of Marxist Leninist theory, for unmasking of various efforts by bourgeois ideologists and their sectarian and revisionist allies to falsify this theory, is so important. Marxism grew up and matured through this struggle, as Lenin says, because " "Marxism ... did not conceal the disagreements, ...[it] did not play the diplomat Marxism… did not hide the differences… it didn’t behave diplomatically" (4) And that is why it is so important to believe that it was precisely Marxist Leninist theory that enabled the Bolshevik party to become such almighty force – the leader of October revolution, the vanguard of the creators of socialist society and communism. V.I. Lenin is the originator of the theory of party organisation, of the rules of the party life and of the principles of the party leadership. Working on these principles, Lenin wrote that "the Party must be able to work out organisational relations that will ensure a definite level of consciousness and systematically raise this level. " (5) The strength of a Marxist party is not just in its ideological unity, but also in the unity of its members in practical activity that can only be achieved through its having a high organisational level. (…) The experience of the counter-revolution leads us to the conclusion that any weakening, or or failure to follow, the principles pertinent to the functioning of a revolutionary party of a new type, and any underestimation of the globally organized forces of the class enemy, which has very powerful weapons at its disposal, will have catastrophic consequences for the liberation struggle of the world working class and of the peoples of the planet.(…)

3Contribution to the 17th International Communist Seminar , "The working class, its role and its mission today. The tasks and concrete experiences of the Communist Party in the working class and the trade union." Brussels, 16-18 May 2008 , The role of the party of the working class in present conditions , Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist)

As far as we are concerned, we are defending our views on the character of the party, both in our own country and internationally, during international meetings and activities. We are talking here about the main principles and ideas that retain their absolute correctness. And none of the changes that have occurred in the past few years can possibly justify their rejection.4]» And: « We consider as a highly important issue the tactic of communists within the trade union movement of the working class. We believe that this issue should be discussed and we would like to contribute to it exposing our experiences and thoughts. Within the labor movement there can be found many political and trade union forces with different ideological and political bases. This is another issue that needs further examination. In Greece there are two General Confederations of Workers. One is GSEE (General Confederation of Greek Workers) and represents the workers in the private sector and in the former enterprises "of general interest". The other one is ADEDY (Supreme Administration of Greek Civil Servants Trade Unions) and represents the workers in the public administration. Nowadays, we cannot continue the approach of previous years to refer to traditional reformist forces who denied the revolutionary process and were in favour of certain administrative reforms. Nowadays, these forces are incorporated in the strategy and the aspirations of the capital and, furthermore, they constitute a key factor that supports the imperialist unions and the "EU one-way street" policies. The reformist forces are a key factor in the constellation of forces that support capitalism, an entire mechanism that incorporates the working class in the logic of class cooperation and corrupts people’s conscience. Since the beginning of the 90’s these forces, the forces of the trade unionism controlled by the bosses, the New Democracy party, the Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK) and the opportunist Coalition of the Left of the Movements and Ecology (SYN), upheld in various ways the basic directive lines of the EU, supported the capitalist restructuring, the privatizations, the attack against the labor and social security rights, as well as the austerity policy. These forces are trying to limit the workers' demands promoting "feasible" and "realistic" solutions in order to serve the interests of the capitalists. In order to achieve these goals these forces don’t hesitate to make use of tacticism and machinations. Some time, they call on struggles under the pressure of the workers and the labor movement and make use of various means in order to control the trade union movement and even to alter the correlation of forces. The communists are in constant confrontation with these forces. In Greece the clash of the two respective lines within the trade union movement is revealed every day.5» How is it possible that the following principles and analysis has been passed as « a contribution » without critic on its opportunist and even revisionist character? Read: « At the end of 2007, the 8th Party Congress of the Workers' Party of Belgium was held, with as theme "A principled party, a flexible party, a party of the workers". We want to become a party of the working people, a party where workers, employees, civil servants, unemployed, intellectuals and independent workers feel at home. A party of its members, based on basic Party groups with good group dynamics. A party that embraces trade unions and does not fight them. A party that is firmly rooted in both factories and municipalities. (…) We decided to open the Party wide for the workers and to lower thresholds. Instead of seeking confrontation with the trade unions, we decided to strengthen them.(…) We had a real problem: quite some workers, employees and civil servants were not at ease with the high demands for admission to and functioning in the Party. Workers remained at a distance of the Party, because the Party all too often appeared to them as elitist, as a Party for "supermen". Common people,

416th International Communist Seminar , The validity and current relevance of the October Revolution of 1917 for the 21st century, Brussels, 4-6 May 2007, The necessity for a revolutionary party of a new type in present conditions, Eliseos Vagenas (*) Communist Party of Greece (KKE)

5Contribution to the 17th International Communist Seminar ,"The working class, its role and its mission today. The tasks and concrete experiences of the Communist Party in the working class and the trade union.", Brussels, 16-18 May 2008 , The role and the historical task of the working class .Communist Party of Greece (KKE)

with their strong and weak points, didn't recognise themselves in a Party that was too much geared towards a restricted group of cadres. That is what we wanted to change. And we opened the Party's doors wide. (…) We lowered the threshold and the demands. The Party now has three different levels and forms of membership: 1. the militant core (national cadres, intermediate cadres and militants) 2. the group members who are organised in basic Party groups. Conditions for their admission are: 1° participate in Party meetings and in the functioning of the basic Party group; 2° pay a monthly membership fee of 5 euro; and 3° accept that the Party functions according to its Statutes and Congress documents. 3. consultative members: they pay an annual membership fee of 20 euro and they are expected to defend the Party and its action. » So here the WPB is leaving the Leninist party principles of a vanguard party, organising the vanguard of the working class, united by one revolutionary party line. Instead, the WPB is defending the conception of a mass-party. In fact she is dreaming of organising workers in a way that is similar of that of the BWP as described by Ludo Martens: « It was a conglomerate of political groups, trade unions, cooperatives, mutual insurance systems, choirs, circles of artists, athletes, etc. At the start of the First World War, the total number of members paying their membership dues amounted to 600,000! But the political groups in the proper sense that made part of the POB counted only 13,000 members. It's a most ingenious political system! With 13,000 members, the reformist party had 600,000 families under its tight direction6» Further: « In the 1998-2003 period, our Party took the road of ultra-Leftism regarding the trade unions. The Party called for a rupture with the "reformist and chauvinist trade unions". In 2004-2005 we made a summing-up of that period as being entirely opposed to the lessons that Lenin had taught us regarding the trade unions in "Left-wing communism: an infantile disorder".(…) The reformist position of the trade union leadership, "the reactionary features of the trade unions" as Lenin put it, made us decide in early 2000 to break with the trade unions and to work in the direction of new, "pure" trade unions.(…) We always publicly criticised the trade union leadership, we publicly attacked them in our leaflets and papers. Whatever they did, it was never good enough, and we sometimes resorted to hollow slogans without basis among the trade unionists. We started (…)in 2005 with a different line for our trade union work, a line to seek alliances, to support all positive things, to intensely debate inside the trade union structures. Instead of seeking a rupture with the trade unions, our purpose became to strengthen them.7» Here the author of this text, Jef Bruynseels, is is taking an IDEA (and in fact a LIE) as REALITY! This is rather painful because he was one of those university-students that decided to work in a factory, even becoming a union-steward (and then fired…). He had to know that the WPB (or rather her militants working in factories) in those years was (were) principally but correctly struggling against reformism in the unions and against the spirit of capitulation and never-ending compromises before capitalists and government. The discussion with union stewards, sometimes very influenced by a « left » reformism, was done in non antagonist way. Aggressive, no democratic, and authoritarian action of reformist leaders (expelling of combative union stewards, for example) was sometimes answered by workers and their union stewards by a « visit » on meetings of union leadership or in there offices. And of course, those party-members-workers were participating! To win the sympathy of leading cadres in the union, the new non elected leadership in power in 2004 of the WPB « condemned » this as « ultra-leftism ».and this without protest of worker-party-members as Jef Bruynseels….. (I analyzed this evolution in texts, you can read here , here and here….. but not yet translated in English)

6 Contribution to the 15th International Communist Seminar , "Present and past experiences in the international communist movement". Brussels, 5- 7 May 2006, The Communist International and the Belgian Communist Party, Workers' Party of Belgium, Juliette Broder and Ludo Martens

7 Contribution to the 17th International Communist Seminar , "The working class, its role and its mission today. The tasks and concrete experiences of the Communist Party in the working class and the trade union.", Brussels, 16-18 May 2008 , www.icsbrussels.org , [email protected], The main challenge for the Workers' Party of Belgium: to become a party of the workers , Workers' Party of Belgium

Further: « What a kind of Party concept is needed in order to attract the broad vanguard and to organise them? What has to change in our Party's style of work (style of leadership, meetings, the number of leading organs,...). What has to change so that the militants and members in these enterprises and in the trade unions can take on more responsibilities? Today, our Party has 2,500 members divided among three different levels of membership. The first is a militant core (1/5th - national cadres, middle cadres and militants), secondly, there are the ordinary (basis) members (1/5th) and thirdly the consultative members (3/5th). It is important to acknowledge that our Party's composition is not uniform and to start from this fact in everything we do. We have to make a distinction between these levels in our functioning and in our demands. The evolution should be towards a broad core of cadres, middle cadres and militants (with a Marxist schooling). They have to attend to, guide, lead and form a very broad basis of 'basis cells' and consultative members.8» Here is a conscious revisionist speaking. It is Peter Mertens himself. Why am I saying « conscious »? Because of his formulation: He defends in fact, the principle of a MASS-party (instead of a VANGUARD-party) with « attracting the broad vanguard » And with words as « broad vanguard », « militant core », « militants » « Marxist schooling », « basis of ‘basis cells’ » he is defending a party-concept against which the Bolchevists (majority) opposed, on the second congress of the Russian Social Democratic Party (read the book « one step forward and two steps backwards » of Lenin. Further: « Proletarianisation of the Party also means: taking to task our implantation and our work in the trade unions; develop a career plan and a profile for all our members-trade union activists and do this together with them. It also means we have to consult our people in the trade unions (trade union functionaries and shop stewards) more. They can help us to develop our profile. Several measures to proletarianise our roster of cadres have been proposed. And we also want to proletarianise the Party's style of work. Since the Party renewal took off in 2004 we have paid much attention to the development of democracy in the Party. The most important campaigns are developed together with the members, including the slogans and the assessments after every campaign or struggle. We hold quarterly seminars for those who are responsible for cells in workers' units. And we now have an organizational bulletin to systematize our most important experiences. We also have more attention for simple and concrete campaigns with materials, tools and actions at the level of our members so that every member can participate concretely.9» With the word « proletarianisation » our revisionist is winning the members and cadres of the WPB for a working method to win union leaders, union stewards and workers for the program of REFORMS with which it will participate in ELECTIONS. Further: « Apart from a strategy - for Belgian communist: work towards a socialist revolution on the European continent - the Party also needs to apply tactics. Tactics lead the way to work efficiently towards the strategy of the socialist revolution on a certain moment in time in certain concrete circumstances. That means that tactics has to be appropriate and can and should change continuously. The Party has to employ all means of struggle, has to prepare for periods of repression and counter-revolution. (…) Tactics is an integral part of Marxism and yet there exists a certain intransigence vis-à-vis the criticism of ultra-leftism and sectarianism. As if appropriate political demands, favourable compromises, variable forms of struggle, flexible organisational forms, united front work and mass work do not make part of Marxism. Ultra-leftism can grow out of routine when one is blind for new developments and just wants to continue 'like before', 'as usual', 'just like in the high tide of the revolutionary movement.' 10» There is no strategy of the WPB (in the form of a concrete but fundamental revolutionary program) « towards socialist revolution ». the only « program of the WPB » is a program of REFORMS with which is worked mainly in ELECTION-campaigns. Speaking of « strategy » next to « tactics », without defining concretely what this strategy is, is making out of « tactics » the fundamental strategy! Every insisting of developing a fundamental strategy and trying to propagate this in the working class is

8 Contribution to the16th International Communist Seminar .The validity and Current Relevance of the October Revolution of 1917 for the 21st century, Brussels, 4-6 May 2007, For a socialist future, with a principled and flexible workers' Party, Peter Mertens, Parti du Travail de Belgium 9Contribution to the16th International Communist Seminar .The validity and Current Relevance of the October Revolution of 1917 for the 21st century, Brussels, 4-6 May 2007, For a socialist future, with a principled and flexible workers' Party, Peter Mertens, Parti du Travail de Belgium 10Contribution to the16th International Communist Seminar .The validity and Current Relevance of the October Revolution of 1917 for the 21st century, Brussels, 4-6 May 2007, For a socialist future, with a principled and flexible workers' Party, Peter Mertens, Parti du Travail de Belgium

named « ultra-leftism ». Every insisting on the necessity of intern discussion about this fundamental strategy is convicted as « fractionism » and sanctioned by exclusion! (as happened to me11) The same « logic » is behind the presence of two opposing lines in the same congress documents (see my analyse of the 5th congress of the WPB in 1995, starting here) as it is behind the presence between two opposing lines in the same International Communist Seminar where each party is been seen as « authentic communist » and its contributions as a « possible »view on things and its « Marxist character » is beyond all doubts (beside perhaps some differences in opinion….). My explanation is that the revolutionary line of certain (still) authentic communist parties is « contaminated » with opportunism. That opportunism is not been fought. That same opportunism can be (proved by the example of the WPB and the SP of the Netherlands) the base of development of revisionism inside a communist organisation. Because this opportunism is used by revisionists (renegades inside the communist movement) to develop their revisionist line. As I proved already the actual revisionist evolution of the WPB, I have, to justify my statements here above, that there is some opportunism in the line and the analyses that the KKE and the CPGB(ml) made. Ok, I will do this in the following articles.(starting with the next article) vrijdag 29 mei 2009 Fighting opportunism to beat revisionism 9 I want to start (see other article) with an analyse of the KKE (the Communist Party of Greece, see website: here) The KKE is seen by the other participant communist parties of the ICS (International Communist Seminary, website: here) as a example of a real communist party. You can find this program (from 1996) on her website here. She has made elaborated analyses that has resulted in a concrete and elaborated fundamental PROGRAM (« the theory without there can be no revolutionary movement ») In this program the KKE is analysing which task she sees for herself in organising which part of the WORLDworking class to make which part of the world revolution. She give concrete views on how that revolution will be and how the beginning of the building of socialism will be. On this concrete fundamental program is based, for the KKE(her members and cadres): - The steps in her day to day work of her members in the working class - The decision in ORGANISATIONAL matters: in case of the mass of the workers, the vanguard of the working class and how step for step the program of the vanguard of the working class has to become the program of the organised combative working class. Because the revolution will be done by the organised mass of workers that had become conscious of his historical task the result of the continuous agitation, propaganda, formation and discussion by the recognized vanguard of the working class: the communist party. Because its program is very concrete, it is possible to judge the KKE on it. It is also possible to judge if their strategy, their tactics, their solutions in organisational matters is correctly linked to their program. I think, that the KKE has the best WEAPONS against possible emerging of revisionism INSIDE her party: because of the coherency of her program, the consequent logic between program, implantation IN the working class to become political and organisational the vanguard of that working class, with the goal, how to organise the working class (determined in her class analysis as part of her fundamental program) for the revolution (as is determined concretely in her program). The WPB (Workers Party of Belgium, pvda.be, wpb.be and ptb.be) had also a elaborated concrete program in 1979, that could conclude in the strategy towards revolution and installing socialism, of the tactics and the solution for organisational questions. But almost from the beginning, some opportunism (what is concerned the applying of Marxism) occurred. That existing opportunism lead in 1995 to the emerging of a revisionist line in the WPB at the side (and not in struggle with) of a real revolutionary line. This revisionist line could become in 2004 the leading line with at the head of the party a group of « renegade » revisionist cadres, because all vigilance of members and cadres had been stopped. (the « history » of all I have already written down, but is for a part published on my web log - here and here, but in dutch- and a review of all analyse in English you can read here) ……. But in both exist (and existed), as I see it, forms of opportunism. And my opinion is that that opportunism has to be fought, when they will avoid the possible emerge of revisionism in their organisations. My opinion about some forms of opportunism in the analyses of the KKE….. So I will NOT give a individual judgement about the whole program, strategy and tactics of the KKE. That is the job of the members of KKE. I will just give my opinion about some forms of opportunism in the analyses and program of the KKE, because I will use them as arguments for my conclusions that the actual revisionism that has emerged in the international communist movement is a result of (and can not be beaten when not is fought) persistence of non-detected forms of opportunism. I refer to the program of the KKE and their contribution to the 17th ICS (in a next article)… It starts with an analyse which is, that is my opinion, to GENERAL, not concrete enough. I should say the

11 I analyzed this evolution in texts, you can read here , here and here….. but not yet translated in English

form of opportunism is here: dogmatism. Here is used rather general conclusions that Marx and Lenin made. Marx and Lenin used those general analyses to make concrete analyses for the (for them) actual world to come to concrete conclusions. Here the KKE used those general conclusions coming out that general analyse to « jump » to the nationstate Greece and there make those conclusions somehow concrete. I think that here is made another opportunist « mistake »: Idealism. Instead to make a very concrete analyse of the actual world with all its concrete contradictions and then to come to concrete conclusions « what is to be done » for communists, the KKE start somehow with the IDEA: « We must have a program for making the revolution inside the borders of what today is called Greece » Once they made that « jump » to the actual borders of the actual nation-state Greece, they have to find argumentation (in the form of quotes out of books from « Marxists beyond no doubt ») for « first the revolution in one country » (what is a country?) This argumentation is in the contribution of the 16th ICS.(I will come back on it in the next article) And here they make another opportunist « mistake », I think: a form of Idealism?: Pretending that there are historical analogies (so is the history making circles?), so you can use quotes (of « Marxists beyond no doubt ») out of their historical context (because that context is identical?) and so let Marx and Lenin make the conclusions that you (the KKE) WANT to make. This is « the advantage » of living in a world with an access to all works of Marx and Lenin (and other « Marxists beyond all doubt ») so you can use them as a sort of encyclopaedia and pick the quotes that are suitable. I know, these are bald statements for an individual about a strong respected communist party as is the KKE. Well, in the next article I start my analysis of forms of opportunism as I see it in the KKE. After that I will try to answer the following questions: - How can that opportunism be a possible source of revisionist development IN the KKE (using the KKE just as an example, not claiming that there exist already revisionism in the KKE!)? - How can that opportunism make them blind for development of revisionism in the International communist movement, in the case for example the « sister-communist » party, the WPB ? maandag 1 juni 2009 Fighting opportunism to beat revisionism 10 As I said in my former article I will argue now basing myself of the documents of KKE itself. « KKE, a profoundly patriotic party, is the genuine and worthy inheritor of the national, democratic and revolutionary traditions of the Greek people. It fights against every manifestation of fascism, nationalism, chauvinism and racism. It defends the rights of minorities and migrants. Throughout its history, KKE has linked the struggle for socialism with the struggle for national independence and democracy, for a Greece independent of imperialist economic, political and military organisations. It refuted the theory of Greece as a “poor relative”. It proved that the Greek people can rely first of all on its own material and intellectual forces. Communists were in the front ranks during the heroic years of EAM and the National Resistance and in the fight of the Democratic Army. (…) « KKE has proven to be a consistent and steadfast defender of the culture of the Greek people. » … « KKE Programme presents, along general lines, its overall strategy for socialism and the main tasks of the class struggle. 12» My opinion: some opportunism is occurring in the form of IDEALISM The KKE starts with the IDEA (which is, that is my opinion, is not historically correct) that Greece is (still) in the stage of struggle for national independency against imperialist colonial intervention, so the struggle for the bourgeois national democratic revolution leaded by a sort of nationalist united front were communists (and the working class) has the leadership, giving « patriotism » and « nationalism » an anti-imperialist character. So there is a conception of the existence of a Greek capitalism with Greek capitalists, that has to be overthrown by a socialist revolution, inside the boundaries of Greece (Which boundaries, those after the Second World War?), after the anti-imperialist struggle for national independency. But to my opinion the main form of capitalism in his actual imperialist stage is NOT Greek capitalism (with Greek capitalists) next to French capitalism with French capitalists, Belgian capitalism with Belgian capitalists or Luxembourg capitalism with Luxembourg capitalists. So Greece, France, Belgium or Luxembourg is not « the » respectively capitalist state-apparatus that has to be broken by respectively the Greek, French, Belgian or Luxembourg working class led by the Greek, French, Belgian and Luxembourg communist parties. So for me the next quote out of the program of KKE is a conclusion of a Marxist analyse. But that Marxism is « contaminated » by opportunism, here for example IDEALISM because the analyse starts with an IDEA and not with historical (materialist) FACTS:

12Programme of KKE, may 1996

« Greek capitalism is in the last stage of its development, i.e. at its state monopoly level. In our country, the material conditions exist for the socialist transformation. This can be seen in the level of development of Greek capitalism and in its contradictions. (…) Greece is in an intermediate and dependent position in the world imperialist system. There are historic reasons for this: the slow and difficult beginning of capitalism in Greece, which took place under the direct economic, political and military involvement of powerful capitalist states and under conditions of dependence on foreign capital. Monopoly capitalism appeared in Greece later than in the developed capitalist countries, and after the international imperialist system had already been created, with the result that it rested on a relatively low material and technical base. In the post-dictatorship years, state monopoly capitalism developed further, dependence on foreign monopoly capital and international imperialism grew. During recent decades, particularly during the 1980s, Greece became more organically adapted to the imperialist system within the framework of the European Community (now the European Union) and NATO, through its participation in international inter-state agreements. With the Treaty of Maastricht, the intervention of the imperialist centre of the European Union was upgraded. To its statutory ability to intervene in the economic sphere was added the ability to intervene on the political and military level, and in the fields of foreign policy and so-called internal security. International monopoly capital controls the Greek economy and its main sectors of activity. The transnationals and monopolies won new positions, penetrated more deeply and play a direct role in sectors critical to the shaping of political behaviour, and of the social consciousness of the working class and the people. Greek capital has become more closely linked with the interests of international monopoly capital. The dominant trend is the interconnection between local capital and its dependence on and adjustment to more general planning. The general trend to involvement does not change the fact that sections of local capital have been hard hit by the transnationals. The Greek oligarchy maintains close connections with all three imperialist centres. Greece’s membership in the European Union does not revoke the dominant role of the United States, particularly in the political and military fields. Under present conditions, the local oligarchy aims to play the role of intermediary between the European Union and NATO on the one hand, and the countries of the Balkans and the Mediterranean on the other. It wants to enhance its economic, political and military presence in the region. These ambitions make it more willing to take part in imperialistic expansionist plans, while bringing it up against the analogous ambitions and expansionist schemes of the Turkish oligarchy, increasing the competition between them and the problems between the two countries. Thus greater possibilities are created for intervention and for the major imperialist forces to take advantage of these differences. Greece has fallen into line with the restructuring imposed by its membership in this imperialist system and is adjusting its economy, mainly in the direction of the service sector.13» To my opinion, the main form of capitalism are the globalised monopolies (often linked to each other in a production-chain of natural resources, refining, production of intermediary products, higher assemblage, logistic divisions for transport, storage, distribution, financing,…..). For the collective interests of the capitalists ABOVE the ever reappearing of competition, between monopoly-cartels but also (often in the form of COST-competition) between departments, divisions IN a monopoly, in the production for a similar end product but based on differently obtained intermediary products or differently obtained natural (or artificial) resources, the monopolies developed suitable instruments with a capitalist STATE-character. But a (capitalist) state apparatus (as a Marxist conception) is NOT falling together with the boundaries of a by the imperialists recognized COUNTRY (in a certain historical of actual situation), where the bourgeois speaks ALSO about « state » or « nation-state ». I think that the European Union is such a capitalist state-apparatus, still in development, and having problems to become a centralised capitalist state because of internal problems (competition, contradictions between monopoly-capitalists and « littler » forms of capitalists enterprises…) inside the capitalist class or the bourgeoisie. It is a state-apparatus for the most important form of capitalist enterprise: the capitalist monopolies that consider the European Union as their interior market. That state is THE instrument to install higher level of exploitation, and organise and support the imperialist ambitions of « her » capitalist monopolies. To give a historic example (as illustration, NOT a analogy): the advise of Marx to the communards was to do revolution, NOT commune by commune (in different regions of France) but to do a revolution organising the workers and peasants on a NATIONAL scale to break the centralised French state, which was at that moment far from centralised because of internal contradictions inside the ruling class of capitalists and feudalists. France was a conglomerate of departments, cities and villages, with different kind of moneysystems and different languages. There was even not a « nationalist » feeling among the workers and peasants. The « old » nation-(member-) states are a part of this state: the European Union. The most « national » laws

13Programme of KKE, may 1996

and political measures, so for example all forms of increasing the exploitation level of the « national » workers, are dictated, influenced, sometimes « advised » on an European level, by a commission or council that is even not elected. The « national » governmental leaders themselves have themselves (being member of those commissions or councils on European level) cooperated on different European levels to the realising of those European regulation and laws and are therefore agree to follow on « national » level in one way or another those European « dictates », « laws » or « advises ». There is a development of the instruments for repression: in fact at this moment the NATO is a staterepression apparatus, or the organisation of a European intervention force (out of the different « national » defence force). You will see that, whenever in Europe there will be an uprising that will get more and more revolutionary character or when it will form a danger for the European Union (look for example at the war against former Yugoslavia) there will be a quick development of a European army (to repress resistance against increased exploitation levels AND against the colonial-like exploitation by the European Union of regions in Africa, Asia and the Middle-East. So, « national » governmental policy of privatisation, deterioration of all kinds of systems of social security, increasing of exploitation level, SEEMS only to have a « national » character. So it is just dividing the working class when you are lust organising class struggle against the « national » governmental policy. It is in the interests of the working class, bringing them in a stronger position and making them more political conscious, to organise them in one big worker-fight- movement (that will have more the character of Soviets than « just a unity-union ») against the European Union state of the monopoly-capitalists. Capitalism in Greece, France, Belgium and Luxembourg does NOT mean for the biggest part of monopolycapitalism that Greece, France, Belgium or Luxembourg is their « homeland » or even « their national headoffice”. In fact is a genuine policy of « divide and rule » (and the communists have to weapon the working class in Europe against this) to use lower levels of the state-apparatus like « national » governments (but now in fact regional government) to pass al the regulations about « privatisation » (that has to give the possibility to the monopolies to form much bigger monopolies over the borders of the member-states) and increasing higher exploitation by the « regional » governments. So spontaneously, the class struggle against these European laws and regulations will be regional…. And so bring a division in the European working class. The communists have to avoid this trap of organising the working class on member-country-level for a socialist revolution that is limited to the boundaries of that member-country (of which the government forms a lower level of the European Union of the monopolies): « Nature of the revolution the anti-imperialist anti-monopoly y democratic front of struggle and the transition to socialism The Greek people will be delivered from the bonds and effects of capitalist exploitation and of imperialist oppression and dependence when the working class and their allies bring about the socialist revolution and proceed to building socialism and communism. The internal developments that have taken place in Greece and the changes in its position within the imperialist system during the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s contributed to making the material conditions for socialism in Greece mature sooner. In our time, the time of the transition from capitalism to socialism, the struggle between the classes is directed toward the resolution of the primary contradiction between capital and labour. The revolutionary change in Greece will be socialist. (…) The anti-imperialist, anti-monopoly front of struggle objectively expresses a broader social base, the interests of the great majority of the people who suffer the effects of actions by the transnationals and of Greece’s membership in imperialist organisations, the interests of the working class, working farmers, the middle strata in the city, and social movements which are fighting to uphold democratic rights and to reject imperialist plans that are to the detriment of the people and of peace. It rallies the working people in the sector of culture and science who resist the sub-culture, commercialisation and manipulation. 14» Is this not a form of meta-physics? Mixing part and whole and making of the whole just a quantitative addition of the parts. « Basic programme directions and goals of struggle (….) Among the main programme directions and goals of struggle are: Disengagement from the European Union, as a basic condition for utilising Greece’s domestic development potential, for a real improvement in the working people’s living standard. Refusal to take part in imperialist plans and interventions, in any way whatsoever. Common action with other movements in neighbouring countries for a regional system of security in the broader South (Balkans, Mediterranean, Middle East). Disentanglement from the web of political and military dependence on the US, the European Union and NATO. Withdrawal from NATO and from the Western European Union. Removal of

14Programme of KKE, may 1996

the US-NATO bases and nuclear weapons. Development of common action with peoples and countries to dismantle NATO and other military-political organisations. A national defence policy which safeguards Greece’s security and ensures an anti-imperialistic orientation in international relations and in the region. No ceding of sovereign rights to imperialist organisations must be sanctioned. 15» To My opinion, the EU has to be fought, not only by different worker organisations in the different member countries of the EU and mobilised by a lose coordination of different NATIONAL communist (so vanguard of that working class) organisations. No the EU, the state apparatus of the monopolies has to be torn down by the organised working class of Europe, a struggle mass organisation of the working class that put the socialist revolution and the expropriation of the capitalists an building their worker state leading a socialist plan economy on the agenda. This organised working class of Europe will be led by their vanguardorganisation the European Communist Party. The NATO has to be fought as the armed antirevolutionary imperialism protecting repression force. Further: « Proletarian internationalism A Marxist Leninist party of a new type, as a party of the working class, is internationalist by its very nature, is an integral part of the world’s communist movement. "Capital is an international force. To vanquish it, an international workers' alliance, an international workers' brotherhood is needed In order to defeat it, an international union of workers, their international brotherhood is required… We are internationalists”16, wrote Lenin. At the same time it is obvious that, after the defeat of socialism in USSR and other Eastern European countries, the old Trotskyite argument raises its ugly head again, i.e., the claim that "the socialism cannot win in one country or even in a group of countries and that socialism will either win everywhere, or nowhere". It is also typical that in our country even the so-called "new left" (in reality – right opportunist and social democratic political forces) have adopted these views and continuously voice them, speaking about "overcoming the limits of struggle at the national level” and even of the "socialist changes in the whole of the EU simultaneously". And here we have to remember what Marx said about these matters. In "The Communist Manifesto" he stresses that the working class first of all will have to defeat the capitalists of their own country and by doing so to help the worldwide process of building of a classless society. This is what the Manifesto says: "Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie"17. Of course, we know that Lenin has written more deeply on this subject. Especially clearly he defined the difference between the victories of socialism in one country, in several countries and the full and irreversible victory of socialism. On the eve of the October revolution, in 1916, in his article, "The Military Program of the Proletarian Revolution", Lenin wrote: "The development of capitalism proceeds extremely unevenly in different countries. It cannot be otherwise under commodity production. From this it follows irrefutably that socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will for some time remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois"18 The conclusions of Lenin’s theory are just as valid today. Unevenness, that expresses itself, among other things, in the fact that economic crisis does not occur simultaneously in different countries, is also linked to the political destabilisation that is a product of both objective and subjective factors, such as existence of a powerful communist party and implementation of a correct strategy, along with the policy of coalitions that would allow the possibility of serious mass mobilisation. So, all the talk about "socialism" within the whole EU, requiring simultaneous ripening of all objective and subjective factors that would lead to a radical revolution within the whole EU, is nothing but more empty talk. Its only purpose is to "disarm" the workers’ movement of each country in their struggle to overturn the capitalist power in their own country. In other words, this is a call to come to terms with the capitalist system. Those who claim that the national struggle "has been overcome" or "overtaken" and is no longer relevant, do not explain in what way the international situation will change, how exactly the current balance of power will be overcome if, as is claimed, it will not break at the weakest link being a separate country or a group of

15Programme of KKE, may 1996 16V.I.Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 430, Pp.. 43 (Russian version) 293, Letter to the Workers and Peasants of the Ukraine. A propos of the Victories over Denikin, December 28, 1919 17 K.Marx and F.Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party [§1 Bourgeois and Proletarians]; http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html 18 V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 23, The Military Program of the Proletarian Revolution, [§1], September 1916; http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/miliprog/index.htm

countries. Is it really possible for the national movement of any country to give up its own initiatives and to sit and wait for they day when other countries will be ripe for revolution? At the very best we are dealing here with tragic self delusion. Such a concept of "waiting" is only useful for those who do not want to take their revolutionary responsibility on a national level. As written in our party program, "The interaction between the national and international does not refute the fact that internal contradictions and conditions play a major role in the revolutionary process. The revolutionary popular movement in each country should direct its fight toward fostering socialism, thus offering its own contribution to improving the international correlation of forces19]20» « Our position towards the Party of the European Left That is why our party, despite being loyal to the timeless motto of Marx and Engels "Proletarians of the world, unite!" and being in favour of greater co-ordination of the work of communist parties at the international level and working out of a unified anti-imperialist strategy, nevertheless does not approve of the creation of "European parties". Especially when we are talking about parties "baked" according to some recipe concocted by the European imperialist centre. We are openly against those communist parties who took the initiative of the creating Party of the European Left (PEL), a creation respectful of EU directives concerning the principles for the foundation of European parties, and we will openly continue our fight against them. But that’s not the end of the story. With every passing day it becomes more and more clear that the PEL not only expresses the concrete ideological orientation of collaboration with capitalism, but also has the aim of dividing not just the workers movement, but all anti-imperialist, anti-monopolist forces. More than that, they intervene in the internal affairs of communist parties, using various means of applying pressure in order to be included as "observers". They even demand from each party that expresses the wish to join their ranks, that first it should condemn "Stalinism", and by Stalinism they mean any point of view that they do not agree with. They make enormous efforts in order to remain united and they change their positions with the speed of light where necessary in order to get recognition of the European Parliament. These are the forces that claim to be such big enemies of the European imperialist centre! In reality, they are not against European structures and institutions; their only goal is to prevent the unity of action of communist parties. Playing our internationalist role, our party takes very seriously the current situation in the international communist movement, paying special attention to bilateral relations between parties and to international and regional conferences and meetings. In these current new conditions, the KKE pleads for co-ordination and mutual co-operation in anti-imperialist and anti-multinational activity; for mutual efforts to form alliances. But it’s obvious that this alone is not enough. The goal of the communist movement is to resolve not just the worst consequences of imperialist policies, not just what we usually call the problems of the day. All these problems, such as poverty, unemployment, war, state terrorism etc, are nothing else but obvious consequences of imperialist strategy. Capitalist restructuring is not some evil deed of reactionaries, just an internal, integral need of the capitalist system itself. The goal of the communist parties is not just the struggle against such reactionary restructuring, but the overturning of the system of exploitation, preparing for the building of socialism. That is why we so much insist that we should find systematic ways and various forms of a dialogue between communist parties that share similar positions. The KKE attaches great importance to such initiatives, in searching for ways and means to form a clearly outlined presence of the communist movement. The KKE supports the formation of an international front of anti-imperialist, anti-monopolist forces 21 » …. Here is, as I see it an (opportunist) flight forward. The, in fact, reformist coalition of « left » parties in the party of European left (a construction for the participation at European elections mainly) is taking as a negative argument for NOT building a European vanguard organisation of the European working class.

19Program of KKE, http://inter.kke.gr/Documents/docprogr/docprogr5/ 2016th International Communist Seminar, « The validity and current relevance of the October Revolution of 1917 for the 21st century, Brussels, 4-6 May 2007 (icsbrussels.org), « The necessity for a revolutionary party of a new type in present conditions », Eliseos Vagenas, Member of the Central Committee and of the International Department, KKE, Communist Party of Greece (KKE)

21 16th International Communist Seminar, « The validity and current relevance of the October Revolution of 1917 for the 21st century, Brussels, 4-6 May 2007 (icsbrussels.org), « The necessity for a revolutionary party of a new type in present conditions », Eliseos Vagenas, Member of the Central Committee and of the International Department, KKE, Communist Party of Greece (KKE)

The discussion about the possibility of the October revolution in the old tsarist empire (in fact built out of a central Russian « country » and annexed other « countries ») seen as « one country », against the argumentation that the revolution is only possible in all the countries in the world together, is used to put forward first the revolution in Greece (and for the Luxembourg communists first in Luxembourg?) this is a opportunist argumentation using the Marxist works as an encyclopaedia where you can pick suitable quotes to prove your predisposed IDEA: the revolution that the KKE has to lead is the revolution in the « country » Greece. (And which boundaries, those after the Second World War?) These forms of opportunism that (as I see it) exist inside the KKE, can be a possible source of development of revisionism. Starting with an IDEA and then seeking for « Marxist » arguments to prove that idea, using the concept of existing analogies in the history, is a way that conscious revisionists are using to prove their bourgeois political line and ideology with « Marxist phraseology ». When the members of a communist party are « formed » in such a wrong manner of using Marxism, they will not be aware of the taking over of the leadership of the party by revisionists. (For me the proof in the practice is the evolution of the Workers Party of Belgium (WPB). And of course when the members of a certain party are not aware of development of opportunism, than they can be not be aware of development of revisionism out of opportunism in sister organisations. I think that that is his happening in for example the International Communist Seminar (I wrote about these contradictions in this article) But at other hand, the good formation that the KKE leadership is promoting inside their organisation, the strong points of analyse, the militant practice of the members that forms a test of the correctness of their program, organising discussions based on democratic centralism about the most important analyses, are arguments of a trust that the KKE will overcome opportunism. And in fact they made a good contribution in the discussion: what is concretely « socialism ». That is important because opportunism and revisionism will become clear in the formulation of what will be the result of which kind of revolution, which power will be leading the building of socialism, and what is in fact “socialism” and what is “socialism” in relation of “communism”? I will treat this in a following article.