Chilean Communist Party (Proletarian Action)

Content
Part 2: Criticism of the ideological foundations of the CPG
• A handful of countries?
• “Imperialist pyramid” or Lenin’s theory of imperialism?
• Idealism hidden in “imperialist pyramid”
• Methodological error
– No participation of communists in governments led by the bourgeoisie?
– Are there no stages between capitalism and socialism?
– Erroneous positions are not harmless
– Incorrect and damaging derivations

Part 2: Criticism of the ideological foundations of the CPG

A handful of countries?

We will develop our critique of the foundations of the CPG’s “pyramid theory” on the basis of one of its publications, entitled “The Leninist approach of the KKE on imperialism and imperialist pyramid.”¹⁰⁾
It puts forward the following fundamental idea:
“3. Certain forces use arbitrarily the assessment of Lenin in his well-known work IMPERIALISM THE HIGHEST STAGE OF CAPITALISM that a handful, a very small number of states plunder the vast majority of the states across the globe. As a consequence, imperialism is being identified with a very small number of countries, which can be counted in the fingers of one hand while all the others are subordinate, oppressed, colonies, occupied due to their subservience to the liberal viewpoint.”¹¹⁾
Those who invoke one of the most basic theoretical deductions of Lenin’s theory of imperialism, namely, that a very small number of states plunder the vast majority of the states of the world, would do so arbitrarily, according to the CPG, because they would thereby identify imperialism with a small group of countries and all the others only as “subordinate, oppressed, colonies, occupied due to their subservience to the liberal viewpoint”¹²⁾; in other words, they would sharply divide the world into two diametrically opposed parts: On the one hand, there would be a handful of imperialist countries and, on the other, a huge group of subordinate, oppressed, colonized or occupied countries.
This reductionist point of view, which evidently contradicts the dialectical methodology, is imputed by the CPG to all those who adopt this essential postulate of Lenin. However, this imputation says more about the one who imputes than about the one who is imputed. It is rather the CPG that distinguishes itself by a simplistic method of analysis and reflects this simplism in others.¹³⁾
Lenin’s postulate that the imperialist states are a handful of countries is and will continue to be valid in the face of the progressive process of concentration of political power that derives directly from the concentration of production and distribution on an international scale.¹⁴⁾ But from this interpretation does not follow what the CPG accuses those of us who maintain that this postulate is true: that the non-imperialist countries are mere subordinates of imperialism. A dialectical analysis of imperialism recognizes both the contradictions between imperialist states themselves, between non-imperialist states and, of course, the contradictions that exist between imperialist and non-imperialist states.
We consider it essential to defend the analytical principles used by Lenin in developing his theory of imperialism and its main derivations. We reject the CPG’s attempt to surreptitiously eliminate or substitute another interpretation for one of the most fundamental theoretical derivations of Lenin’s theory of imperialism, the “handful of imperialist countries,” because we believe that this collapses the entire Leninist theory of imperialism, which in turn will lead to false and harmful conclusions for the correct development of the communist forces in the world.¹⁵⁾

“Imperialist pyramid” or Lenin’s theory of imperialism?

The method of analysis of the CPG is diametrically different from that of Lenin. The CPG analysis, based on the moral concept of “it is capitalist = it is evil”, leads him to put in the “sack of imperialist countries” any country recognized by the United Nations that is not “purely socialist-communist”. Without realizing it, the list of imperialist countries begins to grow exponentially, since at present practically no country meets this criterion of “pure socialism-communism”. The “sack” is filling to overflowing. From the pear shape of the “sack”, a little narrower at the top and a little thicker at the bottom, the CPG extracts with “imaginative acuity” and “remarkable capacity for abstraction” the three-dimensional version of the triangle: a pyramid and entitles it: Imperialism.
This reasoning of the CPG can be translated into a new equation similar to the one already known, but applied to the imperialist reality: (almost) all the countries of the world = imperialist countries = imperialism.
The CPG then imagines imperialism as a great pyramid in which countries are arranged from top to bottom, like books on a shelf. The powerful countries are at the top, the less powerful at the bottom. Since this shelf is shaped like a pyramid, there are only a few countries at the top, the “powerful capitalist states”, to which, as the CPG points out in a desperate attempt to link its idea of the “imperialist pyramid” with Lenin’s theory of imperialism, Lenin’s expression “a handful of countries” (without using the word “imperialist”, however) “could” be applied:
“Today there are few countries which are at the summit, in the first positions of the international imperialist system (it is illustrated with the scheme of a pyramid in order to show the various levels occupied by the capitalist countries) a handful of countries one could say according to the Leninist expression. But this does not mean that all the other capitalist countries are victims of the powerful capitalist states, that the bourgeois class of most countries has submitted to the pressure, despite its general interest that it has been corrupted.”¹⁶⁾
Nowhere does the CPG give, or even attempt to give, any theoretical demonstration that its postulate of the “imperialist pyramid” is a Leninist postulate, but it repeatedly insists on affirming it, as if by affirming something it makes the affirmation to that something. We see this practice repeatedly in this text and in others as well. Another example is the following quote. In it he asserts in the same way that there was a direct connection between Lenin’s postulate and the idea of the “imperialist pyramid”, again without presenting a theoretical foundation for the assertion. In this quotation, however, a “as” is added. This “as” seems to want to establish an “explanatory” link between the statement “a small number of countries are found at the summit of the pyramid”¹⁷⁾ and “finance capital spreads its tentacles to every country in the world”. If the sentence were reversed, it would read: “Since finance capital spreads its tentacles to every country in the world, a small number of countries are found at the summit of the pyramid”. It can be seen that in the wording of the sentence there is no discernible connection between the cause (“finance capital spreads its tentacles to every country in the world”) and the effect (“a small number of countries are found at the summit of the pyramid”). If finance capital extends its tentacles to all the countries of the world, how can it be explained that there are a small number of countries at the top of the “imperialist pyramid”? Or more precisely, why is the structure of imperialism according to the CPG in the form of a pyramid and not another (for example, a sphere or a bottle)?
“When Lenin spoke about a handful of countries that plunder a large number of countries, he was highlighting with many examples and details, a variety of forms of looting regarding colonial, semi-colonial and non-colonial countries. A small number of countries are found at the summit of the pyramid, as finance capital (one of the 5 basic characteristics of capitalism in its imperialist stage as the merger of banking and industrial capital) spreads its tentacles to every country in the world. The position regarding a “handful of countries” defines various forms of relations between the capitalist countries which are characterized by unevenness, this is what the pyramid describes in order to illustrate the global capitalist economy.”¹⁸⁾
The expression “extends its tentacles” presupposes an organic center, a head, like that of an octopod, from which these tentacles emanate. But precisely this center is not mentioned. It would have been different if the CPG had formulated something like this: “Countries that have large amounts of financial capital and export it form the top of the pyramid”. But that would have led directly to a distinction between the countries that hold magnificent amounts of financial capital and those that do not. There would have been a clear division between the countries of the world. And it is precisely this separation that the CPG seems to want to deny. For them, practically all countries are imperialist. Financial capital becomes an abstract “thing” without an organic center and insubstantial, without materiality, which seems to float like air above heads, above societies. It is more appropriate to describe the CPG’s idea of finance capital not so much as tentacles, because they have to come from a center, but rather as ropes that coil evenly around the globe. Although this conception is closer to the CPG conception of finance capital, it also does not explain why some countries are at the top of the imperialist pyramid and others at its base, or more precisely, why the structure of imperialism according to the CPG is pyramid-shaped.
The CPG endeavors to offer something resembling an explanation. To this end, it begins by surreptitiously replacing the Leninist division into ‘imperialist states’, on the one hand, and ‘states colonized by finance capital’, on the other, by ‘powerful capitalist states’ and – as a logical consequence of its analytical thread – ‘weak capitalist states’. According to the CPG, there would be no dialectical opposition between the imperialist countries and the countries colonized by the finance capital of the imperialist countries, but their pyramid, which orders the capitalist countries from the powerful to the weak in descending order. Basically, therefore, all countries would be equal, according to the CPG. What varies is only the degree of “power”.¹⁹⁾ Let’s illustrate this with a color: all countries are blue, but some are bluer and some are less blue. This creates a gradient of the color blue. The color blue represents the amount of “power” a country has. The weaker the blue color, the less “power” a country has.
Thus, the CPG no longer separates states into plunderers and plundered, but distinguishes them according to the “degree of power” they hold. In this way, it abolishes at a stroke the dialectical and materialist analysis of the imperialist phase of capitalism used by Lenin, which, independently of subjectivities such as the reactionary or progressive exercise of domestic or foreign policy, conceives these two groups of countries or states as opposed to each other.
In contrast to the CPG interpretation of imperialism, Lenin’s vision (succinctly described), if it were to be represented in colors, would require at least two and their gradations: a blue color, for example blue like the NATO logo, for the imperialist countries and red for the plundered countries. Within the non-imperialist world, there would also be the gradation described, for example, from very red for the least subjugated countries to less red for the most subjugated countries. But there would also be gradual color transitions between blue and red, indicating the degree of servility (i.e., voluntary submission) to the imperialist states. For imperialist countries, there would also be a gradation of the color blue indicating their degree of capacity to exercise imperialism vis-à-vis other countries. In addition, there could be a gradual mixture with a third color (for example, green), for the imperialist countries which at the same time are subjected to the imperialist country par excellence (in our time, the United States). And finally, there could also be a mixture with more or less shades of red, for the imperialist countries which are subjected to the imperialist country par excellence, but which at the same time try to follow a foreign policy partially independent of it.
Lenin’s whole theory of imperialism is based on the realization that it is a handful of states that constitute the imperialist states and that they make super-profits by exploiting the whole world:
“The imperialism of the beginning of the twentieth century completed the division of the world among a handful of states, each of which today exploits (in the sense of drawing superprofits from) a part of the “whole world” only a little smaller than that which England exploited in 1858; each of them occupies a monopolist position in the world market thanks to trusts, cartels, finance capital and creditor and debtor relations; each of them enjoys to some degree a colonial monopoly (we have seen that out of the total of 75,000,000 sq. km., which comprise the whole colonial world, 65,000,000 sq. km., or 86 per cent, belong to six powers; 61,000,000 sq. km., or 81 per cent, belong to three powers).”²⁰⁾
What a pronounced difference between Lenin’s words and those of the CPG.
In short, the CPG insists on understanding imperialism as a set of countries with different “degrees” of capitalism, so it is faced with an unresolved dilemma: Lenin spoke of a handful of imperialist countries (which is not the same as speaking of “a handful of countries” without the word “imperialist”). The CPG is confronted with a huge sack/shelf/pyramid of some 190 imperialist countries! What to do? The CPG’s answer is simple: not to recognize that there is something wrong with their argument, but to accuse of arbitrariness those who believe that one of the main theoretical conclusions of Lenin’s theory of imperialism is correct.

Idealism hidden in “imperialist pyramid”

It is necessary to refer to the evaluative term “victims”:
Once the CPG has carried out the aforementioned process of ranking the approximately 190 countries in its “imperialist pyramid,” each niche in the pyramid is given one of the following two labels: “victim country/state” or “non-victim country/state.”
So if, according to Lenin, a country is a colony, dependent and plundered by the imperialist countries, independently of the domestic or foreign policy pursued, independently of its role in international politics and whether we like or dislike its present role in it in international politics and even independently of its present historical role, then the Congo, Saudi Arabia or Venezuela are all equally colonized, dependent and plundered countries. But the analytical subjectivism of the CPG gives these states, which are in a particular niche of the pyramid, the moral qualification of victims or non-victims. Possibly two of these countries would be labeled as non-victims by the CPG, namely Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. Congo would probably enjoy the “privilege” of occupying a very low place in the pyramid and being labeled as a “victim” by the CPG.
From these designations, the CPG derives its support or rejection of countries, processes and international policies.

Methodological error

From the perspective of the communist method of analysis, the CPG incurs two methodological defects:
• The CPG confuses two essential terms: ‘imperialist countries’ and ‘capitalist imperialism’.²¹⁾
• The CPG does not analyze social relations, but things (in this case countries).
It is true that the terms ‘imperialist countries’ and ‘capitalist imperialism’ are closely related and can even be used as synonyms in certain circumstances, since one is derived from the other. However, they must be distinguished: Imperialist countries are those whose national bourgeoisies live not only at the cost of the capitalist exploitation of the national working class, but also at the cost of the added value generated by the international working class, i.e., of international capitalist exploitation; and in view of this fact, they allow themselves to pass on ‘generously’ part of this added value (extracted from the other countries) to their own working class in order to appease its fighting impetus. This reveals a serious fact from the point of view of the international struggle of the proletariat: In the imperialist countries the working class is bribed by their bourgeoisies. The working class, at least a large part of it, supports its bourgeoisies in international exploitation and sides with them in defending the interests of the imperialist state, because the working class of the imperialist world understands, consciously or unconsciously, that this state also guarantees it a higher standard of living than it would have without such an imperialist character of the state.
Capitalist imperialism is the system of generalized capitalist exploitation on an international scale, resulting precisely from the capacity of certain countries to exploit the rest of the world. This system of international exploitation is based on a very specific type of capital, finance capital or, to put it less abstractly, banking-industrial monopoly capital, whose axis is in banking, i.e., it is based in banking and from there directs economic and political activities in the countries and on an international scale. The main characteristic of imperialism is, then, that the domination of finance capital has become universalized.
In this reality that emerged around 1900, a special relationship arises between countries: imperialist countries that export enormous amounts of financial capital and dependent countries that are exploited and colonized by that same financial capital. It is the imperialist countries that extend finance capital to the rest of the world. This is the cause of today’s wars, because the expansion of capital is followed by military expansion. Although the imperialist system is much more complex than what we have just described, this relationship is the most elementary one that characterizes contemporary societies, and any analysis of the present, including that of the national class struggle, must necessarily start from this fundamental relationship.
Based on the method of investigation of materialist dialectics, Lenin does not focus on the countries themselves, but on the relations that arise and exist between countries.
The CPG does exactly the opposite. Its “theory” of the “imperialist pyramid” focuses its gaze not on the relations between countries, but on the extremes of these relations, i.e., on the countries themselves. The logical derivation of this, in our opinion, flawed method of analysis is to elevate all countries to imperialism. This remains true even if the states are ordered according to the criterion of the “amount of capitalism” contained in each of them. In other words, the set of capitalist countries (similar to set theory in mathematics) would constitute imperialism, according to the logical statement: a country is capitalist, therefore it is imperialist. The CPG “adds” one capitalist country to another capitalist country until it has added them all together and obtains imperialism, so that the capitalist mode of production itself is elevated to imperialism, or rather equated to it. And since there is practically no country today in which there is not some degree of mercantile relations and capitalist production, the idea of the CPG can be summed up in that the totality of the countries of the earth constitute imperialism.
Thus, the fundamental contradiction that Lenin had pointed out in his theory of imperialism, namely, the contradiction between imperialist and non-imperialist countries and the consequent relations of dependence, exploitation and subjugation, is theoretically suppressed, eliminated, abolished.
The mixture of conceptual confusion and political purism proposed by the CPG has led it to the elaboration of a “theory” of imperialism that is clearly not Leninist and does no good to the international communist movement.
But we recognize boldness in the CPG. It dares to equate its concept of “imperialist pyramid” with that of the international imperialist system, i.e., according to the CPG: imperialist pyramid = international imperialist system:
“Their persistence in denying the existence of the imperialist pyramid namely the existence of international imperialist system […].”²²⁾
Thus, those who deny the idea of the “imperialist pyramid” would consequently deny the existence of the international imperialist system of exploitation. At least that is what the CPG believes.
But as we have seen, the “Leninist approach” proposed by the CPG has much of “approach” but little of Leninism, despite the use of the term “Leninist”.
The confusing conclusions of the CPG

No participation of communists in governments led by the bourgeoisie?²³⁾

The idea of the “imperialist pyramid”, based on theoretical elements that are not consistent with materialist dialectics, leads the CPG to conclusions such as the following:
“Their persistence in denying the existence of the imperialist pyramid namely the existence of international imperialist system (talking about a very small number of countries which can be characterized imperialist mainly due to their hegemonic position and their ability to decide on the launching of a local or general war) is not at all accidental on the part of some people or a product of a mistaken view but conscious. Their willingness to undertake responsibilities in a bourgeois management government arises from this; sometimes in the name of the “country’s exit from the crisis”, the “salvation of the people from the humanitarian crisis”, the “restoration of the country’s sovereignty” even the … “development of the productive forces, through state capitalism”.²⁴⁾
The criticism of the CPG in the previous paragraph to the opportunist postulates that have ultimately abandoned the class struggle, the struggle for political power and the struggle for socialism, seems correct to us, but not the argumentation applied. The CPG elevates non-participation in bourgeois governments (in its words: “bourgeois management governments”) to a universal principle, regardless of the reasons that may motivate such participation, even if they are as fundamental as those mentioned in the quote.
We find it remarkable that the CPG is not capable of analytically evaluating the different bourgeois governments of the present and, consequently, of proposing an adequate national and international policy for the working class. For the CPG, the working class must always and at all times wage a solitary struggle, without seeking tactical or strategic alliances. The CPG sees the working class as Don Quixote, fighting alone for universal justice.²⁵⁾ Any bourgeois government, even if it is progressive, patriotic, anti-imperialist, anti-fascist, promotes national industrialization, nationalizes enterprises of strategic interest for the country, openly opposes NATO, etc., must be rejected by the purist CPG, on the same level as the US and the EU. Being bourgeois, there should be no communist support, much less cooperation. From criticism of opportunist positions, the CPG moves to the most extreme purism.
Perhaps the CPG could return to the reading of the communist manifesto in which in the section “IV Position of the Communists before the different Opposition Parties” it is pointed out for example that:
“In France, the Communists ally with the Social-Democrats against the conservative and radical bourgeoisie, reserving, however, the right to take up a critical position in regard to phases and illusions traditionally handed down from the great Revolution.
In Switzerland, they support the Radicals, without losing sight of the fact that this party consists of antagonistic elements, partly of Democratic Socialists, in the French sense, partly of radical bourgeois.
In Poland, they support the party that insists on an agrarian revolution as the prime condition for national emancipation, that party which fomented the insurrection of Cracow in 1846.
In Germany, they fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty bourgeoisie.”²⁶⁾
The bourgeoisie, as is well explained in the Communist Manifesto, does not constitute a homogeneous mass. Within it there are progressive and patriotic sectors with which the working class can and should form tactical and even strategic alliances. If it does not do so, the working class weakens its own forces to oppose the big capitalists, leaving the small and medium sectors of the bourgeoisie at the mercy of reaction and even allowing the penetration of fascist ideas in them. The Communist Manifesto rightly made it one of its central concerns to point out to the proletarian masses and to the communists the need to establish alliances with sectors of the bourgeoisie, on condition that they then undertake revolutionary action against the absolute monarchy. Monarchy no longer exists, at least not in most countries. But imperialism does. And the need to establish patriotic, anti-imperialist, popular and progressive alliances with the most advanced sectors of the national and international bourgeoisie continues and will continue to be in force until the day when imperialism is definitively defeated.

Are there no stages between capitalism and socialism?

From the incomprehension of the tactical necessity of the working class to establish relations with progressive and even revolutionary sectors of the bourgeoisie, to the rejection of the existence of stages between capitalism and socialism, these are the great theoretical leaps of the CPG:
“Thus, in practice certain people defend the existence of a stage between capitalism and socialism, with the clear purpose on the one hand of ensuring that the working class will give up the struggle for working class power and on the other, to promise that in the distant and unspecified future capitalism will be transformed peacefully with reforms and without sacrifices into socialism, their own “socialism”, which often provides for the coexistence of capitalist ownership with some forms of self-management.”²⁷⁾
Starting from the correct rejection of the opportunist postulates which claim that the conquest of political power by the working class and its allies would be possible without the use of all the means of struggle, including the indispensable armed struggle, the CPG makes an Olympic leap of argumentation up to the negation of the stages between capitalism and socialism; a feat it achieves in a single sentence without considering necessary the slightest theoretical justification. The question remains unanswered as to what theoretical argument would support a link between the rejection of opportunism and reformism, on the one hand, and the denial of the existence of stages between capitalism and socialism, on the other.
The CPG could ask itself questions about the validity of its approach: In the CPG’s opinion is it legitimate to work in a bourgeois parliament, according to the legal and institutional framework created by the owners of big imperialist and national capital, but not in a bourgeois government? Does the CPG really believe that it can achieve more for the working class from parliament than through a patriotic and revolutionary government in alliance with honest sections of the bourgeoisie? Does the CPG intend to establish socialism in Greece immediately, from parliament,²⁸⁾ as soon as the working class has taken political power, with the leadership of the CPG, which today, we repeat, is waging a parliamentary struggle and…. all this without “bourgeois” allies at any time? On what industrial basis does the CPG want to build socialism in Greece? How is a socialist Greece to survive in a world in which the rest of Europe, and indeed the rest of the world, remains capitalist? With which states does the CPG think socialist Greece should ally itself if none of the countries recognized by the United Nations meet its demanding requirements?
What will the Hellenic people do, living in a socialist oasis in the middle of the imperialist ocean?
It is impossible to know what Lenin, if he were alive, would have responded to the CPG, given ist remarkable ability to jump from correct to chimerical positions in a single paragraph or even a single sentence, but it is possible to review his responses to the positions of the “left communists,” which seem to us similar to those of the CPG today.
In 1917, in his writing “The State and the Revolution”, he taught us that:
“Opportunism today, as represented by its principal spokesman, the ex-Marxist Karl Kautsky, fits in completely with Marx’s characterization of the bourgeois position quoted above, for this opportunism limits recognition of the class struggle to the sphere of bourgeois relations. (Within this sphere, within its framework, not a single educated liberal will refuse to recognize the class struggle “in principle”!) Opportunism does not extend recognition of the class struggle to the cardinal point, to the period of transition from capitalism to communism, of the overthrow and the complete abolition of the bourgeoisie. In reality, this period inevitably is a period of an unprecedently violent class struggle in unprecedentedly acute forms, and, consequently, during this period the state must inevitably be a state that is democratic 26in a new way (for the proletariat and the propertyless in general) and dictatorial in a new way (against the bourgeoisie).
Further. The essence of Marx’s theory of the state has been mastered only by those who realize that the dictatorship of a single class is necessary not only for every class society in general, not only for the proletariat which has overthrown the bourgeoisie, but also for the entire historical period which separates capitalism from “classless society”, from communism. Bourgeois states are most varied in form, but their essence is the same: all these states, whatever their form, in the final analysis are inevitably the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The transition from capitalism to communism is certainly bound to yield a tremendous abundance and variety of political forms, but the essence will inevitably be the same: the dictatorship of the proletariat.”²⁹⁾
Thus, Lenin wrote in 1918 in “‘Left-Wing’ Childishness and the Petty-Bourgeois Mentality” the following:
“Firstly, the “Left Communists” do not understand what kind of transition it is from capitalism to socialism that gives us the right and the grounds to call our country the Socialist Republic of Soviets.
[…] No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia, has denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Socialist Soviet Republic implies the determination of Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the new economic system is recognised as a socialist order.
But what does the word “transition” mean? Does it not mean, as applied to an economy, that the present system contains elements, particles, fragments of both capitalism and socialism? Everyone will admit that it does. But not all who admit this take the trouble to consider what elements actually constitute the various socio-economic structures that exist in Russia at the present time. And this is the crux of the question.
[…] Those who fail to understand this are committing an unpardonable mistake in economics. Either they do not know the facts of life, do not see what actually exists and are unable to look the truth in the face, or they confine themselves to abstractly comparing “capitalism” with “socialism” and fail to study the concrete forms and stages of the transition that is taking place in our country. […]The best of them have failed to understand that it was not without reason that the teachers of socialism spoke of a whole period of transition from capitalism to socialism and emphasised the “prolonged birth pangs” of the new society.[…].”³⁰⁾
Or in 1919 he said in “Economics and Politics In the Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat”:
“Theoretically, there can be no doubt that between capitalism and communism there lies a definite transition period which must combine the features and properties of both these forms of social economy. This transition period has to be a period of struggle between dying capitalism and nascent communism – or, in other words, between capitalism which has been defeated but not destroyed and communism which has been born but is still very feeble.”³¹⁾
Lenin replied to the “left communists” who hoped, like the CPG today, to reach “heaven in one leap” that there is an inevitable transition process between capitalism and socialism³²⁾ and that socialism cannot be established immediately.
The quotations we have used in this part of the text are consciously from Lenin and from the period in full struggle for the conquest of political power. We have avoided quoting Marx or Engels, for the following reason: the proletariat, under the wise leadership of the Bolsheviks, had conquered political power and established the dictatorship of the proletariat, but these facts did not mean the realization of socialism! In other words, the conquest of political power in the hands of the working class is not synonymous with the establishment of socialism, nor can it be, because the bases of production necessary for the realization of socialism must be prepared, the appropriate new socialist State must be erected, the class struggle must be waged with greater force, imperialism must be combated, etc.
It seems to us that if such arguments were valid in those years when the class struggle was at its height and the proletariat, with the support of the peasantry, conquered political power, they are even more valid today, when part of the socialist camp ceased to exist. One of the most important lessons of the dissolution of the USSR for the new generations of the working class is that the realization of socialism requires even greater efforts than the first generations had imagined.³³⁾
But the CPG claims to perform two miracles at once: the conquest of political power without alliances with “bourgeois management government” and the immediate realization of socialism. With this entelechy, the CPG believes it has overcome the postulates of the opportunists and reformists who affirm that it is possible to transform capitalist society into socialism “peacefully with reforms and without sacrifices”.

Erroneous positions are not harmless

The “leftist” positions of the CPG seem harmless because they apparently have a just intention; that of confronting those who promise that it is possible to achieve socialism without revolution and the seizure of political power. However, they are not. These chimeras are the basis of harmful positions such as calling socialist China and Russia imperialist countries!³⁴⁾
In the first place, it should be mentioned that we believe that communists should if possible not only participate in patriotic, popular governments with a socialist perspective, but also promote them, together with anti-imperialist, anti-fascist, progressive and democratic bourgeois forces. To do this, communists must have both a communist political program and a patriotic and popular program through which they can enter into contact with such groups and combine their forces to achieve common goals.
At a time when the seizure of political power and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat are far from being a real possibility, as is the case today in the absolute majority of societies (including Greece), it is legitimate, from the point of view of political tactics, for the communists to go, even “behind” the democratizing bourgeois forces that are trying to carry forward structural changes, such as the nationalization of enterprises of strategic interest for the homeland, the reversal of privatizations and the deindustrialization of the country, the development of a system of national planning to reactivate the national industry, the strengthening of the military power of the country (which will be very necessary to defend a democratic and popular process against the destabilizing attempts that will come from outside), to fight in the countries subjected by NATO for its expulsion from the national territory, to strengthen the international political relations with the socialist countries, but also with the bourgeois democratic, progressive, anti-imperialist, anti-fascist countries and with economic organizations such as the BRICS, CELAC and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (to avoid as far as possible the sanctions and the economic siege that such a process will undoubtedly bring), wage a real war against the big capitalists of organized crime, promote a drastic tax reform and strengthen the trade union movement and link the working class with the other sectors that share its destiny.
Precisely this necessity is quite explicitly denied by the PCG. The result of this is that the PCG proposes a solitary struggle of the proletariat handing over to reaction its possible allies. The probabilities of success of a solitary struggle of the proletariat without alliances with sectors of the democratic petty bourgeoisie, with the peasantry (in countries where there is still a sufficient mass of peasantry) and even with sectors of the patriotic big bourgeoisie, are very low, because all these forces will pass to reaction and the latter will have the immeasurable support of imperialism.

Incorrect and damaging derivations

We have already seen the fatal consequences of the analysis based on the “imperialist pyramid” in the case of Venezuela.³⁵⁾ Let us now consider a more complex case from the point of view of the political purism proposed by the CPG: Saudi Arabia. We believe there is a fairly widespread consensus among communists that this monarchical state has been a lackey of the United States, as have all the Gulf monarchies to a greater or lesser extent. Saudi Arabia has played a nefarious role against Syria, even helping to fund NATO terrorist mercenaries there. It has enabled U.S. military influence in the region through the five U.S. military bases it has there. It has waged a criminal war against Yemen in the interests of NATO, causing the largest humanitarian crisis of these days. From the perspective of anti-imperialism, there is probably little positive to say about this country.
But nothing remains outside the universal law of the cosmos: movement. Nor does international politics, which is in full swing. Unexpectedly, an agreement was reached between Saudi Arabia and Iran that can be described as historic, especially since it was mediated by China. After a year and a half of bilateral negotiations, the two countries reached an agreement that puts an end to the diplomatic rift that had lasted seven years since 2016. Saudi Arabia has even announced the start of a foreign policy more focused on the region than on servility to the United States. This is not the first time that Iran and Saudi Arabia have re-established diplomatic relations after a rupture. This time, however, it is taking place in the context of a general weakening of US and EU imperialist influence in the region and, what seems to us particularly important, with the aforementioned mediation by China.
China has achieved a historic agreement between the two countries without having a single military base in the region.³⁶⁾
This political development is very important from the point of view of the anti-imperialist struggle and international peace, and should cause at least a positive sense of relief among communists around the world, as it reduces imperialist influence in the region and thus the risk of regional military conflicts. We welcome this important agreement brokered by China and hope that it will mean the end of Saudi Arabia’s war against Yemen.
However, despite the importance of this political event, the CPG did not utter a single word, not even of disapproval. On its English-language website, there is not a single article referring to this event. If there had been, it would probably have been a negative assessment. CPG political purism would probably have pointed out: When a capitalist Iran, a capitalist Saudi Arabia and a China that the CPG also considers capitalist sit around a table to negotiate an important diplomatic agreement, nothing good can come of it. Why? The answer the CPG would probably give would be simple. Ignoring the complex contradictions in the vast web of dependency, subjugation and struggles for national sovereignty that constitute imperialism, it would simply answer: they are all capitalists. …
However, the absence of any reference to this political event, important for international politics and diplomacy, speaks even less in favor of the CPG’s “method of analysis”, the so-called “imperialist pyramid”, than a negative reference to this fact, because this shows that its method leads to a remarkable inability to recognize internationally relevant political facts of the moment – relevant from the point of view of international peace and anti-imperialism.
From the point of view of communist tactics, it is possible to appreciate certain aspects of bourgeois governments and processes. The valuation depends above all on the level of development of the consciousness and organization of the working class. At a time of low development, as for example currently in Brazil, the value that can be given to a president such as Lula is different than if the working and popular masses of Brazil were on the verge of taking political power. In such a case, communists would not have to call for a truce with him, but to bypass the government (despite its positive aspects), because this government would mean paralyzing the revolutionary impulse. In the present circumstances of Brazil, on the other hand, it is legitimate both to recognize the many positive aspects of Lula’s government and to denounce those that are detrimental to the interests of the proletariat, always encouraging it – the proletariat – to advance on the road to emancipation from wage slavery.
The difficult dilemma is not the question of communist participation in or support for bourgeois governments, but the question of when to participate or support them, when not to do so, and how not to depend on per diems received in public office and parliament. Any bourgeois government that lays certain foundations that facilitate the future construction of socialism (for example, the strengthening of national industry or the expulsion of NATO military bases) is worthy of integration.³⁷⁾ But communists must work resolutely in it to deepen the process itself and direct it toward socialist revolution.
Therefore, a communist should not reject on principle all the economic and political measures of a social-democratic government, nor those of a reactionary (or right-wing) government,³⁸⁾ if some of them represent progress or, at least, do not set back the working class in its struggle for its emancipation. A communist party assumes the correct aspects of the bourgeois governments, rejects their negative manifestations, that is, those that threaten the advance of the working class towards the conquest of political power, and proposes its own program for the country as a synthesis of both aspects without dogmatism. What must not happen under any circumstances is that the communist party abandons its own program and replaces it with bourgeois programs (like that of Syriza in Greece, for example), that it loses contact with the popular masses and stops denouncing and mobilizing against anti-working class and anti-popular measures.
These political subtleties seem absent in the CPG analysis.
In the third and final part, we will address what we consider to be the dangerous CPG postulate that socialist China and Russia would be imperialist, and show why these claims are unfounded and highly damaging. We will respond to arguments such as the following:
“The WAP argues that “That there is no economic data to justify characterizing China or Russia as imperialist. These are countries that do not live by superexploiting or looting the world. They do not put other countries into military, technological or debt slavery” and that “Russia and China are not aggressive imperialist powers but, on the contrary, are targeted by our enemies because they stand in the way of the USA’s complete global domination”.
With these statements, the WAP once again seeks to distort reality. It is as if China and Russia do not participate in the G20 summits, the meetings of the 20 most powerful capitalist states of the world, together with the USA, Germany, the UK, France, etc. It is as if the Chinese and Russian monopolies do not export capital to other countries, aiming for the profit that comes from exploiting the labour power not only of the workers of their own country, but also of many other countries in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, wherever their monopolies develop. It is as if the Russian “Wagner” private army is deployed in Africa for charitable reasons and not to defend the interests of the Russian monopolies operating there. It is as if China is no longer moving in a similar direction to safeguard the Belt and Road Initiative by military means. It is notable that this initiative includes the small but very important in geographical terms state of Djibouti – whose debt to China amounts to 43% of its Gross National Income – where China’s first military base outside its borders was inaugurated in 2017”³⁹⁾

Notes

10)   We consider that the term “imperialist pyramid” used by the CPG is confusing or even erroneous, since it implies that a thing, a pyramid, is imperialist (i.e., the pyramid is imperialist). We believe that by this term the CPG means: “the pyramidal structure of imperialism”. At least that is how we interpret it. The imprecision of terms is a constant in the text to which this footnote refers.

11)   Communist Party of Greece (CPG) “The Leninist approach of the KKE on imperialism and imperialist pyramid, Written contribution of the KKE at the 9th International Conference of the CWPR ‘Lenin and the contemporary era’”, in: https://inter.kke.gr/en/articles/The-Leninist-approach-of-the-KKE-on-imperialism-and-imperialist-pyra- mid/

12)   What does “subservience to the liberal viewpoint” mean? What is a liberal viewpoint supposed to be? For us, the statement “due to their subservience to the liberal viewpoint” is ambiguous.

13)   In the first part of the article we saw that the CPG reduces the evaluation of international political reality to a single universal equation: it is capitalist = it is evil. What could be more reductionist than such an assumption?

14)   In the first part of this article we have already outlined what, in our opinion, currently constitute this handful of countries: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Japan.

15)   We have already seen a foretaste of the fatal conclusions to which this revision of Lenin’s theory could lead in the case of Venezuela in Part 1 of this article, in the section “Reactionary Venezuela?”. There we saw that the CPC calls on communists to reject the government of Nicolás Maduro in line with the imperialist sabotage against the country.

16)   Communist Party of Greece (CPG) “The Leninist approach of the KKE on imperialism and imperialist pyramid, Written contribution of the KKE at the 9th International Conference of the CWPR ‘Lenin and the contemporary era’”, in: https://inter.kke.gr/en/articles/The-Leninist-approach-of-the-KKE-on-imperialism-and-imperialist-pyra- mid/

17)   In the quote it says: “A small number of countries are found at the summit of the pyramid, as finance capital (one of the 5 basic characteristics of capitalism in its imperialist stage as the merger of banking and industrial capital) spreads its tentacles to every country in the world.”

The part highlighted in black in parentheses is inaccurate. Finance capital is not a characteristic of imperialism. Rather, one of its characteristics is the merging of banking capital with industrial capital, from which finance capital emerges. A thing (in this case “finance capital”) cannot be the characteristic of a social relation (in this case “capitalism in its imperialist stage”). It is a phenomenon, a fact (in this case, “the merging”) that can be. In other words, the issue is exactly the opposite of what the PCG says.

Lenin puts it this way: “[…] it is convenient to give a definition of imperialism that includes the following five basic features: […] 2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this ‘finance capital,’ of a financial oligarchy”.

This inaccuracy of the CPG is only one of many. The sheer scale of such inadequacies suggests to us that the CPG has not grasped Lenin’s theory of imperialism.

18)   Communist Party of Greece (CPG) “The Leninist approach of the KKE on imperialism and imperialist pyramid, Written contribution of the KKE at the 9th International Conference of the CWPR ‘Lenin and the contemporary era’”, in: https://inter.kke.gr/en/articles/The-Leninist-approach-of-the-KKE-on-imperialism-and-imperialist-pyramid/

19)   It is not clear what the CPG means by the term “power” or, more precisely, “powerful”: political power, economic power, military power? All at the same time? In what sense would these states be powerful?

20)   V.I. Lenin: “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, VIII. Parasitism and decaz of capitalism”, 1916, at: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch08.htm

21)   This time we place the term “capitalist” explicitly because of an argumentative thread that we develop below.

22)   Communist Party of Greece (CPG) “The Leninist approach of the KKE on imperialism and imperialist pyramid, Written contribution of the KKE at the 9th International Conference of the CWPR ‘Lenin and the contemporary era’”, in: https://inter.kke.gr/en/articles/The-Leninist-approach-of-the-KKE-on-imperialism-and-imperialist-pyramid/

23)   “Bourgeois management government” is another imprecise term used in the quoted text, which is neither defined nor explained. What does the CPG mean by this term? It reminds us of concepts taught in business subjects, where terms such as “management of a company” are often used. Does the CPG apply these terms to state policy? What would the bourgeoisie manage? The state, the economy? For the CPG, would there be in the same way govern- ments “managed” by the bourgeoisie and governments “managed” by the proletariat? Is it not true that every government today, in the capitalist world, is a government that represents the interests of the owners of big domestic and foreign capital and acts in their interests, and that this reality can only change to the extent that the working class and the great popular masses achieve political power? Is it possible to have a government “managed” by the proletariat without having changed the character of the capitalist State?

We believe that the terms “reactionary governments” or “pro-imperialist governments” or “popular democratic governments” or “lackey governments of imperialism” or “progressive governments” etc. better describe the character of the various bourgeois governments in this case.

Since the CPG does not make much effort to define its terms (it is impossible to say whether it does so deliberately or for lack of theoretical capacity), this opens up a multitude of questions and imprecision. We shall interpret the term “bourgeois management governments” as governments acting to a greater or lesser extent in the service of big national and foreign capital. In this sense, the vast majority of the governments of the non-socialist countries would be “bourgeois management governments” in the opinion of the CPG. If we have misinterpreted this term, we are grateful for the fraternal correction of the CPG.

In our opinion, we had said, it is clear that no government can be “of proletarian management”, because without the seizure of political power this is not possible. A proletarian government presupposes that the State is in the hands of the proletariat. If one follows the reasoning of the CPG, which rejects any type of “bourgeois management government” one can conclude that, in its opinion, the communists should only “assume responsibilities” (another diffuse term) in the “proletarian management government”. And since “proletarian management government” are impossible without the seizure of political power by the workers and other popular masses and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the CPG implicitly points out that the communists should exercise government only once the proletariat and its allies, under the leadership of the communists, have seized political power. Until then, the communists can stay quietly at home or engage here and there in parliamentary work.

24)   Communist Party of Greece (CPG) “The Leninist approach of the KKE on imperialism and imperialist pyramid, Written contribution of the KKE at the 9th International Conference of the CWPR ‘Lenin and the contemporary era’”, in: https://inter.kke.gr/en/articles/The-Leninist-approach-of-the-KKE-on-imperialism-and-imperialist-pyramid/

25)   The “principlism” of the CPG does not always seem coherent. One example: We agree with the CPG that a government like that of Zyriza has not favored the workers and other popular strata of the country. But the same is true of Gabriel Boric’s government in Chile, in which one of its sister parties, the Communist Party of Chile (CPCh), which in no way can be considered a small party like the PCV and the PCM, participates. While the CPG maintains absolute silence on the involvement of the CPCh in a bourgeois government lackey of the U.S., which attacks the indigenous Mapuche of Chile, the students and workers, and which is one of the few governments in the region that has firmly sided with Ukraine and supports the fascist Zelensky government, the CPG vehemently attacks govern- ments like those of Nicaragua and Venezuela that oppose the U.S.. What is the reason for the CPG’s resounding silence on the CPCh’s “willingness to undertake responsibilities in a bourgeois management government”?

26)   Karl Marx y Friedrich Engels: “Manifesto of the Communist Party”, first published: February 1848, in: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm

27)   Communist Party of Greece (CPG) “The Leninist approach of the KKE on imperialism and imperialist pyramid, Written contribution of the KKE at the 9th International Conference of the CWPR ‘Lenin and the contemporary era’”, in: https://inter.kke.gr/en/articles/The-Leninist-approach-of-the-KKE-on-imperialism-and-imperialist-pyramid/

28)   Let us not forget that the CPG obtained 7.23% of the parliamentary votes in the last elections, in the bourgeois parliament of Greece. In this context, two facts must be pointed out: The CPG rejects the alliance with “bourgeois management governments”, but participates in the parliament, one of the most important systemic structures of the bourgeoisie, through which the bourgeoisie manages to transfer the class struggle into the bourgeois institutional framework. The second fact to highlight is that in these elections there was a high abstention of 48%, mostly from proletarian sectors. Taking into account such a high level of abstention, it is difficult to understand the arrogance of the CPG, considering that the abstention was five times higher than the votes of this party.

29)   V.I. Lenin: “The State and Revolution”, first Published: 1918, in: https://www.marxists.org/ebooks/lenin/state-and-revolution.pdf

30)   V.I. Lenin: “‘Left-Wing’ Childishness and the Petty-Bourgeois Mentality”, first published May 9, 10, 11, 1918, in: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm

31)   V.I. Lenin: “Economics and Politics In the Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat”, first published: Pravda No. 250, November 7, 1919, in: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/oct/30.htm

32)   It should be clarified that the term communism was used as a synonym for socialism.

33)   It would have been more correct that the CPG would have pointed out that there are no stages between ‘capitalism’ and the ‘seizure of political power’. This statement would also have been debatable and its evaluation would depend above all on the objective and subjective conditions of each country, but it would have been more correct, because the ‘seizure of political power’ is a necessary condition for the beginning of the construction of socialism and lies precisely between bourgeois and socialist society.

34)   In the third part we will examine the false foundations on which the CPG reaches such conclusions and the great damage they do to the communist movement and the struggle of the working class with these false classifications.

35)   We have already pointed it out: on an erroneous basis the CPG draws conclusions harmful to the international workers movement. We have already seen how badly the CPG advises the CPV at the present time, how much damage it is doing to the struggle of the proletariat in Venezuela and to the Bolivarian process and by that means to the proletarian struggle throughout the world! The CPG should call on the CPV not only not to withdraw from the process but on the contrary to be part of it, to support it in spite of its possible shortcomings, of course not to be silent in criticizing certain shortcomings if necessary, but always with the maximum loyalty to the Venezuelan homeland and to the Bolivarian process, to present to the people of Venezuela at every moment an adequate tactic, patriotic and revolutionary, and an accurate analysis, to be the most determined defenders of the Bolivarian process and to be in the front line pushing the process forward so that it does not stagnate, give up or involute. But the CPG calls on the CPV to join de facto the national reaction and imperialist intervention!

36)   But as we will go deeper in the third part China would be imperialist according to the CPG.

37)   In Chile these were the cases of the governments of Salvador Allende and Pedro Aguirre Cerda. Other examples are the current processes in Venezuela and Nicaragua. Although they are bourgeois processes, these governments are resolutely laying the foundations of national sovereignty, so fundamental for the development of socialism in the future, they are strengthening their army, fundamental for the defense of the homeland against an imperialist invasion, they are raising the standard of living of the great popular masses (not by means of the exploitation of other countries but by means of social struggle), they are raising the intellectual level of the great masses of the country, etc.

38)   A case in point is the Hungarian Prime Minister, Victor Orban. His dissenting positions on NATO have led him to be considered undesirable in the imperialist world, even though his country is a member of NATO. It is to be welcomed that, despite the permanent pressure he faces from the hegemonic NATO countries, Orban tries to pursue a policy that is as sovereign as possible for a NATO member country.

Positive elements can also be found in Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who has managed to adopt a sovereign position within NATO in Turkey’s interest, vis-à-vis NATO’s stance. He has skillfully managed an elegant back-and-forth between NATO and Russia and China. No other government of a NATO member country can boast of a similar ability to move deftly between NATO interests and engage with other countries, even those labeled as “challenging” NATO security interests, as the president of the Turkish country in particular has done. After President Orban, French President Macron comes closest to this.

The list could be extended: If you compare the Trump and Biden administrations, you can see a greater danger to humanity in Biden than in Trump. Trump tried to get out of several war scenarios in which the US is involved. Biden, on the other hand, has opened a new war front in Ukraine and risks a real all-out war against Russia. It is quite possible that Biden will open another war front around Taiwan and the South and East China Sea.

Recognizing these aspects does not mean renouncing communist “principles”, but making an analysis without dogmatism or ideological purism, as communists should do.

39)   Communist Party of Greece (CPG) “The Leninist approach of the KKE on imperialism and imperialist pyramid, Written contribution of the KKE at the 9th International Conference of the CWPR ‘Lenin and the contemporary era’”, in: https://inter.kke.gr/en/articles/The-Leninist-approach-of-the-KKE-on-imperialism-and-imperialist-pyramid/