Chilean Communist Party (Proletarian Action)
Content
Part 1: Critical approach to the positions of the CPG
– Reasons for a response to the Communist Party of Greece (CPG)
– Greece must leave NATO! Or should not it?
– The CPG’s subterfuge to avoid debate
– No support for capitalists?
– Reactionary Venezuela?
– The member organisations of the Platform “ignore or deny” that the current mode of production in the world is capitalist
Part 1: Critical approach to the positions of the CPG
Reasons for a response to the Communist Party of Greece (CPG)
The international relations section of the Communist Party of Greece (CPG) published on April 1, 2023 an “overwhelming” (read vehement) criticism of the World Anti-Imperialist Platform (WAP) on the party’s website.
We have carefully read the text and, despite its inappropriate tone, we have decided to answer it because we consider fundamental an honest and fraternal debate among communists around the world on national and international political issues, even if there are divergences of opinion even on essential aspects, so that, as a synthesis of a debate based on the scientific understanding of reality and far from dogmatism and chimeras, the most correct ideas may prevail, capable of coordinating and adequately orienting the struggle of the working class in the countries and in the international arena to achieve the defeat of imperialism, the seizure of political power by the working class and its allies and, finally, the socialist revolution. Today in particular, given the very special circumstances in human society (finance capital is about to plunge all humanity into a war without parallel in history) an accurate, precise, pragmatic and genuinely revolutionary understanding is required.
In the following we will develop a response to the criticisms of the World Anti-Imperialist Platform expressed by the CPG, avoiding adopting a contemptuous, aggressive and, in our opinion, even at times arrogant tone, similar to that of the aforementioned text, because we believe that the debate among communists should be based on ethical principles such as fraternity, humility, respect and loyalty and always safeguarding the fundamental interests of the national and international working class and the great oppressed and exploited masses who share their destiny and are their natural allies (the democratic petty bourgeoisie, the peasantry, the original peoples, the intelligentsia). Neither aggressiveness nor arrogance should determine the opinions of communists, but only the quality and clarity of the arguments.
Right ideas must prevail, wrong ideas must be inexorably abandoned. There must be no dogmatic barriers, no chimeras, no personal pride to impede the abandonment of wrong ideas.
This must be the guiding principle of every communist. And it is under this criterion that we will analyze the text of the CPG and its pyramid theory.
Greece must leave NATO! Or should not it?
We begin our response to the CPG letter with a question that is also a proposal.
As everyone can verify without much effort, one of the central political pillars of the World Anti-Imperialist Platform, of which the Chilean Communist Party (Proletarian Action) is part, is the struggle against NATO, and the organizations that compose it, based in NATO member countries, are there fighting for the exit of their country from this criminal and warmongering organization. In order not to follow the same path as the CPG, that is, direct confrontation with organizations that do not share its postulates, we have decided to seek common ground on which to converge, something that communists internationally urgently need at this time. We consider that opposition to NATO could be a unifying element because we have found demands such as the following:
“Today everything points to the need to struggle for the overthrow of capitalist barbarism, which condemns workers to class exploitation, social injustice, and imperialist wars. The KKE, which over the years has striven and continues to strive with all its might to “turn the wheel of history”, is at the forefront of the development of the anti-imperialist and anti-war movement, against the US–NATO military bases, for the disengagement from imperialist plans and alliances such as NATO and the EU. Today, against the backdrop of the sharpening of inter-imperialist contradictions, this popular movement must become more widespread, to embrace more workers’–people’s forces, to be replete with the contemporary content of the anti-imperialist struggle. For our country, disengagement from NATO and any imperialist union is a key priority for the workers’ and people’s movement, and, as history has shown, it can be irreversible and in favour of the interests of the people with the strong guarantee of workers’ power.
All efforts must be directed towards this goal!
– US–NATO bases must be immediately closed down!
– No Greek soldiers and military officers outside of the country’s borders. All Greek armed forces participating in imperialist missions abroad must return home!
– No participation of Greece in imperialist plans!
– Disengagement from the imperialist NATO–EU unions, with our people masters in their own land!”[1]
We believe these are correct ideas. Similar criticisms of NATO can also be found in many other articles on the PCG website, whose content and corresponding demands seem to us to be broadly correct.
However, we were very surprised not to find a single statement, declaration or demand from the CPG calling for Greece’s exit from NATO. It seems to us a contradiction that the CPG is intensively engaged in criticising NATO, but without calling for Greece’s withdrawal from it. The closest call for a withdrawal from NATO that can be found on the CPG’s website is the following:
“It projects the goal of conflict and rupture with NATO and the EU as elements of the struggle to overthrow the power of capital in order to achieve workers’ power, which is a prerequisite for the liberation of the country from any imperialist alliance, and in favor of the people. Additionally, it is struggling to have the NATO bases removed from Greece, to prevent any attempt to change the borders, condemns the deployment of any Greek or foreign army using its territory as starting point. It struggles based on the principles of Proletarian Internationalism for international solidarity and friendship of the peoples.”[2]
NATO military bases, especially US-American ones, must leave Greece, Europe and the world! We agree with the CPG on this basic demand. But demanding a conflict and a break with NATO is not the same as demanding that Greece must leave NATO. What does the CPG mean by “conflict and a rupture with NATO”: Greece’s formal and official withdrawal from NATO, a withdrawal from NATO’s military structure without leaving it[3], a disagreement or a dispute with it? A military confrontation? Why not explicitly demand that Greece should leave NATO?
It is clear that if Greece were to leave NATO, its military bases would have to do the same on Greek territory, since any agreement with NATO ends as soon as a country ceases to be a member.
The Greek struggle against NATO can therefore be summed up in a single phrase: Greece out of NATO, which inevitably means NATO’s withdrawal from Greece. And doing so is simple. Article 13 of the NATO treaty states:
“After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.”[4]
Greece, with its entry into NATO in 1952, has more than fulfilled the 20 years required for its exit.
Therefore, if the CPG is consistent and sincere in its criticism of this organisation, we would like to make a proposal to it, despite our political and ideological differences: the joint drafting of a declaration calling for the exit of Greece from NATO, together with a joint action to this purpose in Athens (for example), to promote the struggle within the working class and the great oppressed and exploited masses of Greece for the definitive withdrawal of the country from the criminal warmongering organisation. We are ready to collaborate in this activity, to spread it and to participate in it and to come from other latitudes to support it. We also want to invite the members of the CPG and SolidNet to support our activities of this kind.
A union of communist forces in this direction will strongly support the development of the communist movement in Europe and the world.
Our proposal is open.
The CPG’s subterfuge to avoid debate
It is true that, despite the similarities we have just pointed out, there are not inconsiderable differences between the Platform’s postulates and those disseminated by the CPG and its SolidNet. But instead of pursuing a debate based on arguments, the CPG sidesteps it with judgements:
“The outbreak of the imperialist war in Ukraine has sharpened the contradictions within the international communist movement around serious ideological-political issues that have been plaguing it for years and express the opportunist influence in its ranks. Naturally, the focus was on the stance towards the imperialist character of the war that is being waged between the USA-NATO-EU and capitalist Russia on the territory of Ukraine, the stance towards the bourgeoisie and its political representatives such as social democracy, the problematic analyses of the imperialist system and the position of China and Russia, and other issues, more deeply connected with the question of the erroneous strategy of stages towards socialism, of support for and participation in bourgeois governments.”
In general, we agree with the political assertions in the quote, as they are generic assertions. However, we would like to highlight the subtle argumentative trickery used in it:
The seemingly illuminating phrase: “and express the opportunist influence in its ranks” is in reality a qualifier that assumes that any opinion that does not coincide with the CPG’s views makes its spokesmen opportunists. Instead of looking for common denominators, the CPG begins by parting the waters between communists as Moses parted the Red Sea. Two supposedly inexorably divided flanks oppose each other ideologically and are unable to find unity because the “other” flank would be composed of “opportunists”, and with opportunism, on which we agree with the CPG, there is no possibility of dialogue.
Against this background, we point out that, although we differ from the CPG’s positions in many politically and ideologically relevant respects, we firmly and categorically reject the label of “opportunists“.
Given the fact that the CPG’s “critique” abounds in subjective expressions, i.e. judgements that substitute for arguments, we find it regrettably necessary to address them. Take, for example, the following long excerpt, which is full of judgements but devoid of political or ideological argumentation:
“Under these circumstances, on the eve of the 22nd International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties (IMCWP) that was held in Havana last October, a new international organization called the “World Anti-Imperialist Platform” (WAP) emerged in Paris, which has already organized a series of activities in Belgrade, Athens and recently in Caracas, hosted by the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV). The WAP’s event in Venezuela coincided with the anti-popular attack launched by the social democratic government of PSUV on the working class and popular strata of Venezuela, at a time when it has reached agreements with the right-wing opposition and the USA, intensifying the anti-communist attacks and subversive actions against the CP of Venezuela.
It is important to look at which forces make it up as well as the main problematic positions of the WAP.
A peculiar amalgam of political forces
An amalgam of political forces is involved in the activities of the WAP, where social democratic forces, such as the aforementioned PSUV and a South Korean organization (People’s Democracy Party) that has come out of the blue, play the main role, together with some Communist and Workers’ parties, such as the Hungarian Workers’ Party, the Communist Party (Italy), the New Communist Party of Yugoslavia, the Russian Communist Workers’ Party (RCWP), the Lebanese Communist Party, the Maoist Communist Party of Great Britain (M-L), the Pole of Communist Revival in France, etc.
Moreover, as the Communist Party of Mexico1 denounced, even nationalist, racist and reactionary political forces participated in the events in Caracas. Such were, for example, the nationalist Spanish organization “Vanguardia Española” (Spanish Vanguard), whose roots go back to the nationalist philosopher Gustavo Bueno, who was an active Phalangist fighter and supporter of the fascist dictator Franco in the 1950s. The “Vanguardia Venezolana” (Venezuelan Vanguard) is of a similar ilk.
Two unknown organizations from Greece participate in the WAP, lacking of mass action and social basis: the “Collective of Struggle for the Revolutionary Unification of Humanity” (D. Patelis) and the “Platform for Independence” (V. Gonatas), which lately have been marked by an intensification of anti-KKE sentiments, often choosing the slippery slope of provocative attacks via the Internet.”
A lot of letters, but little content. At least what is said in the first part of the quote is true. Shortly before these words were written, another Platform meeting had been held in South Korea.
But then a series of disqualifications are piled on, substituting political and ideological arguments and showing, in our opinion, a tendency to arrogance and to replace arguments with relativisations and qualifiers, but also ignorance about the World Anti-Imperialist Platform, which is spoken of with such “authority”. It is not our intention to go into details about the internal organisation of the Platform. However, it is appropriate to point out that participation in international meetings organised by the Platform is not synonymous with membership. The CPG can also participate and contribute its ideas without becoming a member.
We would also like to comment briefly on the term “small organisations“. Regardless of whether or not it is correct in relation to the various organisations that make up the Platform, it seems to us a contradiction to use it to disqualify organisations that do not share the ideas of the CPG, but to base one’s own argumentation on equally small organisations, such as the Communist Party of Venezuela (PCV)[5] and the Communist Party of Mexico (PCM) (which is practically only a name). We are of the opinion that these organisations should not be disqualified because of their size, but, like any political organisation, should be evaluated according to the correctness of their arguments.
In the section “Brief critique of basic positions of the WAP“, the CPG raises the question of what imperialism is and denounces the opportunist misuse of the concept also by representatives of the bourgeois classes. We agree with this view and the considerations the CPG draws from it in the first paragraph.
Subsequently, the CPG quotes comrade Lenin:
“Lenin has substantiated the basic features of imperialism: “(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital,” of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.”
And it concludes as follows:
“As we can see, the scientific Leninist approach for imperialism is a far cry from the common use of imperialism as an aggressive foreign policy or the identification with a single state, albeit being the most powerful one, as the WAP, among others, argues.”
Here we see another variant of the “argumentative subterfuge” used by the CPG: the CPG arbitrarily attributes to the members of the World Anti-Imperialist Platform, ideas that have not been said anywhere and that cannot be implicitly deduced from any text, and then puts forward a “scientific comparison” of such assumptions with the statements of Comrade Lenin.
In the WAP we do not understand “imperialism as aggressive foreign policy”, but the other way around, that aggressive foreign policy is a consequence of the imperialist character of a country (or of an organization, such as NATO). By inverting the argumentation of the adversary in this way, without having cited him, it is easy to “win” any debate.
What if we were to do the same? We could, for example, ingeniously suppose that the CPG says that the US, NATO and the EU are less “evil” and less aggressive than Russia and China, and that, according to this party, the latter two would be the main enemies. And then, instead of refuting the ideas that the CPG actually holds, refute this invention of ours.
– It is quite difficult to refute ideas that are based on the distortion of our own. It is impossible to know whether the CPG deliberately misrepresents the ideas of those who oppose its claims, or whether this is the result of a lack of reading comprehension, or both. The entire section entitled “National sovereignty, regional unions, new global financial architecture or socialism?” is an almost unbelievable accumulation of supposed ideas that we, as WAP, would advocate. Not a single one of these assumptions is true, unfortunately, and those that are true are inaccurate or exaggerated:
– It is absolutely NOT true that we in the WAP have abandoned the struggle for socialism. As CP(PA) we not only fight unfailingly for socialism, but for communism, a free society, with a very high scientific and technological development, in which the state has vanished given the fact that class contradictions have been definitively overcome.
– It is NOT true that, according to the members of the WAP, “all problems arise from foreign interference, from the imposition of the will of the imperialist powers, mainly the USA, in all countries“. We postulate that the central problems (the economic and political dependence of the countries under the hegemony of imperialism, the plunder of the sources of raw materials, the diversion of part of the added value produced in the dependent countries to the imperialist centres, wars, coups d’état and destabilisations, etc.) are the result of imperialist hegemony. Coups d’état and political destabilisations of the countries that do not want to submit to imperialist hegemony, indebtedness, militarism, poverty and misery, forced migrations, destruction of the ecosystem, etc. of societies are the consequences of imperialism precisely because it is able to exercise international hegemony and in fact does exercise it. But to all this must be added the internal contradictions resulting from the national class struggle.
– And what does it mean that in “practice” the WAP seeks “to forge alliances in the bosom of the so-called national bourgeoisie”? Alliances between the national petty bourgeoisie and the big bourgeoisie? Alliances between the working class and the national petty bourgeoisie? Alliances between the working class and the national big bourgeoisie? Alliances between the national bourgeoisie of one country and the national bourgeoisie of another? The concept is not clear.
– And so the CPG deduces, from the mountain of confusion that the it has about the postulates of the Platform, that we would be the ones with “confusion over imperialism, an underestimate of the international character of the era of monopoly capitalism, which is reflected in every capitalist state with the sharpening of the basic contradiction between capital and labour and the strengthening of the tendency of the absolute and relative deterioration of the position of the working class.”
The CPG does not refute here the postulates of the World Anti-Imperialist Platform, but its own.
No support for capitalists?
The quote reads “capitalist Russia“, which begs the question: Is there any doubt that Russia is not capitalist? Why is it not also mentioned that the USA, NATO and the EU are capitalist? Why is it considered necessary to underline the fact that Russia is capitalist, but not that the USA, NATO and the European Union are too?
We believe there are two (perhaps even three) answers to the above questions:
One: The CPG apparently assumes that a communist organisation that “dares” to support Russia cannot have learned that with the final dissolution of the Warsaw Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance on 1 July 1991, a part of the entire socialist camp ceased to exist and that the Russian Federation that emerged from that dissolution is no longer socialist.
Two: The CPG must underline this character of Russia in order to point out that the communists cannot even think of supporting it. In other words, the CPG believes that communists “must not” support a country in which the capitalist mode of production predominates. The statement “capitalist Russia” or others like “capitalist Iran” are thus warning signs for “real” communists: “It is capitalist, don’t even think of supporting such a country”. No matter how anti-fascist, anti-imperialist or popular-democratic a country’s politics may be, the political purism proposed by the CPG demands that only a purely and truly socialist country deserves the support of “real” communists.
(Three: The CPG only considers Russia as a capitalist country, but not the US, NATO and the EU. What they would be, is not clarified).
In our opinion, it is the first two reasons that lead the CPG to explicitly label Russia as capitalist.
We, the CP(PA), members of the World Anti-imperialist Platform, consider it not only legitimate, as Lenin[6] and Stalin and in general the entire leadership of the USSR did throughout its life, for communists to support countries where the capitalist mode of production predominates, but also a real necessity for the anti-imperialist, anti-fascist and socialist struggle as long as this country plays a positive role in this respect. Although Russia is today a capitalist country, we express our full support for its current anti-imperialist and anti-fascist struggle in Ukraine and wish it victory!We will elaborate on this point later in part two of this paper, when we address the key issues.
Reactionary Venezuela?
One part of the above quote deserves more attention, and that is that the Platform meeting in Caracas “The WAP’s event in Venezuela coincided with the anti-popular attack launched by the social democratic government of PSUV on the working class and popular strata of Venezuela“. If one reads the CPG’s statements on Venezuela, they are practically based on a single source: the PCV, whose rank and file have entered into strong contradiction with the leadership of their party.
The Venezuelan process is not a revolutionary or socialist process in the communist sense, i.e. one that postulates the entrenchment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the establishment of a socialist system of material and cultural production. But it is an anti-imperialist government that is in direct confrontation with the USA and the EU, a government that has taken great steps towards the national sovereignty of Venezuela, that is strengthening the economic and political integration of the region, whose existence has meant strong economic support for Cuba, and that is a fundamental part of the international forces that are weakening the hegemony of the USA and the EU. Which of these aspects can the CPG boast of today? Which of these aspects would be reprehensible from the point of view of socialist construction?
It is false that the legitimate government of Venezuela has launched an anti-popular attack on “the working class and popular strata of Venezuela“. Those who launched such an attack were the imperialists who stole (and continue to steal) millions of dollars and gold from the Venezuelan homeland, who caused the death of thousands of Venezuelans with the sanctions, who destroyed the productive capacity of the country with the economic blockade, who financed, equipped and politically supported the Venezuelan reaction[7] and who tried to overthrow the legitimate government of Venezuela, with American money and the American flag in their hands! Is the CPG content to condemn the repeated coup attempts planned by imperialism to overthrow President Nicolás Maduro and to proclaim abstract solidarity with the Venezuelan people, but not to support the government that actively defends the state, the Bolivarian process and the Venezuelan homeland against such criminal acts? No CPG statement expresses support for the Venezuelan government for its actions against the coup attempts. To proclaim solidarity with “the people” and to take it away from the government that has just been elected by the people and against which the coup attempts are directed is nonsense.
The people is not an abstract concept, as the CPG claims. The people are made up of social classes, and part of the people support the coup attempts and the US intervention in Venezuela. Which part of the “people” does the CPG support, those who participated in the coup attempts or those who defend the government of Nicolás Maduro?
With the term “anti-popular attack“, the CPG unhappily refers to the police response to the non-peaceful demonstrations of the Venezuelan philo-fascist coup groups.
We, as Chilean communists, who know well the infamous procedures of reaction and the consequences of a hand too soft to resist it, consider the measures implemented by the government of President Nicolás Maduro to be legitimate and necessary. One could even say that they are too soft. More dictatorship could be good for the process, in our opinion. However, it is not our duty to criticise the possible shortcomings of the Bolivarian process. But it is the duty of all revolutionary organisations, especially communist ones, to build democratic, popular and sovereign processes that are friends of Bolivarian Venezuela in our countries, that strengthen the Bolivarian process through political and economic relations between the countries.
The CPG then indignantly points out that the Venezuelan government has reached agreements with the right-wing opposition and the USA.
Unlike the CPG, we think that the fact that the Venezuelan government has reached agreements with the right-wing opposition should make communists all over the world happy, as it is a declaration of defeat – at least on the part of the opposition – and at the same time a strengthening of the Bolivarian government. Or should the Venezuelan government avoid finding ways to reduce the subversive actions of the national reaction and keep alive the social instability that so much impedes the progress of the country and the progress of the Bolivarian process?
In the relationship with the USA, the agreements are not political, but economic. Should Venezuela reject the agreements on trade and oil production even if the USA is willing to lift at least part of its sanctions against the country? Should Venezuela carry out an economic “self-blockade” and strangle its own economy in the name of political purism? Communists should rejoice that the US has been forced to withdraw part of its sanctions policy, at least temporarily. This has given a huge boost to the Venezuelan economy. The economic resources now flowing into the country are allowing for advances in healthcare, housing, the development of domestic industry to lay the foundations for a process of industrialisation of the country, and even the strengthening of the military. Not welcoming Venezuela’s economic recovery, which is also a consequence of the less radical sanctions, would in practice be to wish for the economic and therefore political collapse of the Bolivarian process, in line with the US and the EU.
The Bolivarian process may or may not have shortcomings. Regardless of this, a communist must always prefer the Bolivarian process, with all its notable advantages and also disadvantages, to the direct rule of imperialism in Venezuela. As long as we communists do not succeed in building at least a political process similar to that of Venezuela in our countries, it is incumbent upon us to pay the utmost respect and admiration to the Bolivarian process. We therefore take this opportunity to reiterate our firm support for the government of Nicolás Maduro, to state that we are following the economic recovery of the country with great optimism, and to wish his government and the militant Bolivarian people of Venezuela every success in all their future endeavours. We are confident that they will succeed in overcoming all the obstacles imposed by imperialism and national reaction, and we pledge to accompany their struggle and, above all, to fight for a homeland in Chile that is a friend of Bolivarian Venezuela!
The member organisations of the Platform “ignore or deny” that the current mode of production in the world is capitalist….
This at least is how the CPG puts it in its critique of the Platform in the section entitled “Imperialism as an ‘abnormal situation’ that can be remedied…”:
“The WAP presents a completely reversed picture of the global reality we are experiencing. From its analyses, we cannot understand that we live in the capitalist system, since the concept of capitalism has been banished from every related statement (e.g. the founding Paris Declaration, the materials of the recent Caracas meeting).”
The CPG strangely believes that the members of the World Anti-Imperialist Platform would not know that the internationally dominant mode of production is capitalist, since the word capitalism would not appear in the declarations (they use the term “banished”), except, according to them, in the Greek translation.
The lack of reading ability of the editors of the “Critique of the Platform” is truly astonishing. Anyone with an average human capacity for reading comprehension easily discovers in our statements such expressions as: “That while today’s Russia is a capitalist country, it is one whose socialist past has left it with an ability to stand up for itself against imperialist control” or “This line is based on a wrong theoretical premise (that every large economy in the capitalist world must automatically be an imperialist one“.[8]
The text goes on to point out that there was a “misuse of the term imperialism” on our part:
“At the same time, there is a misuse of the words “imperialism”, “imperialists” and “anti-imperialism” in the WAP materials. Thus, imperialism, which according to Lenin is monopoly capitalism, is distortedly treated simply as an aggressive foreign policy, detached from its economic basis (the monopolies and the capitalist market economy) and from its class essence as the power of the bourgeoisie.”
They believe, as we have already learned above, that we – and we mean here the members of the Platform – would understand imperialism “simply as an aggressive foreign policy, detached from its economic basis“.
It sounds like humour. Where did the CPG get such childish ideas?
It would not be worthwhile to respond to such arguments. However, since the CPG presents them as fundamental arguments in its “critique”, which is available to everyone, we feel obliged to refute them. First of all, it must be stressed that all the members of the Platform, as well as our party, aspire to the overcoming of wage slavery, i.e. the capitalist system of exploitation, and that we all, without exception, are “clear enough” to agree with the CPG that the prevailing mode of production today is the capitalist one. We differ from him, however, in that this is for us a self-evident fact that does not deserve to be mentioned in every sentence of our writings. When we speak of imperialism, we speak of the highest stage of capitalism, as comrade Lenin had categorised it and as one of his most famous works is entitled: “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism“. One might think that the authors of the “critique” of the Platform understand Lenin’s categorisation and the title of the work, to which they themselves refer. Evidently, they do not! And since the CPG does not seem to understand Lenin’s elementary categorisation of the present stage of development of capitalism, it is unable to understand that to speak of imperialism is also to speak of capitalism. It seems almost incredible to have to reply to a party which claims to be communist and to know scientific socialism that it is superfluous to speak of imperialism and capitalism at the same time, because imperialism is capitalism, capitalism in its highest stage.
The CPG jumps from one far-fetched interpretation of the concepts postulated by the Platform to the next. Now it turns out that the Platform would imagine an imperialism embodied exclusively by a single country, the USA:
“In all its statements, the identification of the concept of imperialism with the strongest power of the international imperialist system to date, i.e. the USA, is characteristic. Even when reference is made to other imperialist unions, such as the EU, NATO, the IMF, the World Bank, etc., it is assumed that we are dealing with “US imperial interests”. In this way, as if by magic, the responsibilities and self interests of the bourgeois classes of the rest capitalist states, other than the USA, that participate in these alliances are concealed. Thus, the USA is distortedly presented as an empire of a modern colonial system, where all the states allied to it are its subordinates.”
It is true that we recognise the United States of America as the centre of imperialism, the hegemonic country par excellence. One need only look at the map showing the distribution of US military bases around the world (more than 800 officially recognised military bases) to confirm this fact. No country in the world comes even close to this number. However, the CPG takes it to the absurd extreme that, in our opinion, the US is the only imperialist country in the world. The picture painted by the CPG of an “empire of a modern colonial system in which all states allied with it are its subordinates” is simplistic. The Caracas Declaration of the Platform points this out:
“It is clear for all to see that the global market economy is in deep crisis. This crisis of global capitalism is accelerating the decline of the USA, which rose to the top of the imperialist world after the powers of old Europe had been weakened by two world wars, claiming for itself the title of ‘saviour of the modern [capitalist] world’.”[9]
Imperialism has its centre in the United States of America (given the constant process of concentration of political power in the hands of this country, especially as a result of the fact that it was the great victor of the Second World War, even if it was not the country that expended the most sacrifice and energy). But we also count among the imperialist countries the following:
– the United Kingdom with its imperialist union, the Commonwealth of Nations, comprising 56 member states, the vast majority of which belonged to the former territories of the old British Empire
– France and its hegemony over the continent of Africa
– Germany and its domination of the Eurozone
– and finally Japan
In these states with the USA as the political and economic epicentre of imperialism, we recognise the imperialist countries of the present. The domination and exploitation that these countries exercise over others constitutes imperialism as a system of international exploitation.
Now, it is true that the latter countries (Britain, France, Germany and Japan) are economically, politically and militarily dependent on the USA. In fact, Germany and Japan in particular have ceded part of their sovereignty to the USA as lackeys so that the USA can impose and defend its imperialist interests in the world. This is a consequence of the defeat of the Axis powers during the Second World War. To this day, the US maintains military bases in these countries with which it can conduct its foreign (and increasingly its domestic) policy. Acknowledging this fact does not at all mean, as the CPG implies, that the Platform parties would exempt these countries (because of their dependence on US imperialism) from the “responsibility and interests of the bourgeoisie of the other capitalist states”. How the CPG arrives at such a conclusion is a real mystery.
Perhaps the answer lies in what follows:
“On the contrary, it is considered that “Russia and China are not aggressive imperialist powers” and together with others, such as North Korea and Iran, are presented as “anti-imperialist”, which, together with the so-called progressive governments of Latin America, resist imperialism.
Moreover, we see that any class-based approach is abandoned as various regional unions, “such as ALBA and CELAC”, which basically involve capitalist states but the WAP believes that will “bring together the oppressed nations of Latin America”, are praised.
Finally, with regard to the imperialist war in Ukraine, the WAP considers it to be an act of aggression by the USA, which is using Ukraine to attack … “anti-imperialist” Russia and China.”
The CPG’s indignation at our alleged exculpation of the “responsibility and self-interest of the bourgeoisie of the other capitalist states” is based on the fact that it includes the Russian Federation, the People’s Republic of China, the Islamic Republic of Iran and even the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the list of imperialist countries. The CPG’s indignation is compounded by the Platform’s support for regionalist agreements such as ALBA and CELAC, “which basically involve capitalist”. Since such organisations “basically” involve capitalist states, we communists would be obliged, according to the same logic that the CPG applies in the case of Russia or Iran, to reject them out of hand, as if every capitalist state or organisation were as bad as any other… as if there were not only contradictions or at least nuances within countries but also within international politics and economics.
As CP(PA), not only do we not consider any of these countries and organisations (ALBA and CELAC) imperialist, although they are capitalist, but two of the countries mentioned, China and the DPRK, are socialist and belong to the current socialist camp together with Cuba, Vietnam and Laos (to which democratic and sovereign processes such as Nicaragua and Venezuela are added).
The method of analysis used by the CPG absolutely contradicts the communist method of analysis: materialist dialectics, which interprets reality as a whole, i.e. material and social reality, as contradictory in itself. The CPG is incapable of even beginning to recognise the contradictions that exist within international politics between the capitalist countries and the international organisations, let alone exploit them in the interests of the working class and its allies.
For him it all boils down to a very simple universal equation: it is a capitalist = it is evil!
Even Albert Einstein would be jealous of this equation.
Thus for the CPG, incapable of finding the slightest nuances, it is true according to its schematic universal equation that IMF and WB = ALBA and CELAC.
Or for example: USA = Venezuela.
Or, also: USA-EU-NATO=Russia.
And, problem solved.
It goes without saying that the method of analysis applied by the CPG is not materialistic dialectics, but static and idealistic.
Here we have finally entered a major ideological point.
The second part will continue with a critique of the CPG’s idea of imperialism in the form of a pyramid and the false conclusions that follow from that idea.
[1]Communist Party of Greece (CPG), “Organized popular struggle against the involvement in imperialist plans, for disengagement from NATO and the EU”, in: https://inter.kke.gr/en/articles/Organized-popular-struggle-against-the-involvement-in-imperialist-plans-for-disengagement-from-NATO-and-the-EU/
[2]Communist Party of Greece (CPG), “Declaration of the Central Committee on the 100th anniversary of the KKE”, in :https://inter.kke.gr/en/articles/DECLARATION-OF-THE-CENTRAL-COMMITTEE-ON-THE-100TH-ANNIVERSARY-OF-THE-KKE/
[3]Since NATO was founded on 4 April 1949, no country has withdrawn from NATO. However, there have been three cases of a country withdrawing from NATO’s military structure: France under Charles de Gaulle in 1966, Spain from 1986 to 1999 and Greece from 1974 to 1981.
[4]The North Atlantic Treaty (NATO), “The North Atlantic Treaty Washington D.C. – 4 April 1949”, in: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm?selectedLocale=en
[5]In the CPV, the rank and file openly oppose its leadership. Due to the CPV’s misguided positions towards the Venezuelan government, it has also lost a not insignificant number of members. Members who have left the CPV have joined the PSUV or other organisations that support the Bolivarian government.
[6]Little is known that on 27 March 1919, the Soviet government became the first government in the world to recognise the independence and sovereignty of Afghanistan, which at that time was a monarchy, and supported it during the Third Anglo-Afghan War (3 May-3 June 1919). At the end of this war, Britain was forced to sign a peace treaty with Afghanistan, recognising the country’s independence for the first time.
The CPG of today would have been outraged in those years: “How could Comrade Lenin think of recognising and even supporting ‘monarchist Afghanistan‘!” and would surely have given him “lessons” in political purism very similar to those given to us.
[7] In this context, the following documents can be consulted (Spanish texts):
– “Informe del Experto Independiente sobre la promoción de un orden internacional democrático y equitativo acerca de su misión a la República Bolivariana de Venezuela y al Ecuador” in: https://digitallibrary.un.org/nanna/record/1640958/files/A_HRC_39_47_Add-1-ES.pdf?withWatermark=0&withMetadata=0&version=1®isterDownload=1
– “La Relatora Especial de la ONU sobre el impacto negativo de las medidas coercitivas unilaterales en el disfrute de los derechos humanos, Sra. Alena Douhan,concluye su visita a la República Bolivariana de Venezuela” in: https://observatorio.gob.ve/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Informe-de-Relatora-Especial-de-la-ONU-Alena-Douhan-1.pdf
– “Sanciones económicas como castigo colectivo: El caso de Venezuela” in: https://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/venezuela-sanctions-2019-05-spn.pdf
[8]The World Anti-imperialist Platform (WAP), “The rising tide of global war and the tasks of anti-imperialists (Full text)”, en: https://wap21.org/?p=334
[9]World Anti-Imperialist Platform (WAP), “Caracas declaration: Latin America has a vital role to play in the world anti-imperialist struggle”, https://wap21.org/?p=2332
